Which do you think was the more pivotal event, Gamergate, or DONGLEGATE, where two devs at a Python conference became the first ever to be #canceled online for saying "I'd like to fork her repository"?

Which is a more important area of industry, gaming or open source tech?

Did the s j dubs actually have any level of success in getting game studios to stop producing male power fantasies?

On the other hand, didn't every single "open source community" adopt an "inclusive code of conduct"? Didn't Microsoft then colonize almost the entire space?

Weren't Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds explicitly forced to apologize for their Authoritarian Personalities and take on lesser roles?

Isn't Mozilla on the verge of bankruptcy due to mismanagement, meaning Google will soon have a monopoly over internet browsing?

Isn't it the case that the security state is constantly trying to sneak "backdoors" into open-source projects, meaning that having stubborn idealist weirdo nerds running these projects is the one thing that prevents us from total domination by surveillance capitalism?

And if we consider Wikipedia as part of the open-source tech world, aren't these stubborn nerds the only thing standing in the way from mass revision or erasure of history by Turing-test passing editor bots?

It's almost like Gamergate was just a side battle in a strategic Kulturkampf against the "reactionary internet nerd" that unexpectedly grew especially big and bloody - similar 2014-era fronts in nerd shit like nu-atheism or sci fi probably were as well.

Gawker, who started the Gamergate wars, was also publishing ValleyWag which skewered the nerds in the Bay for their reactionary traits, eg libertarian ideals, idea of "genius" Great Men propelling science. Which do you think the editors saw as the more pressing cultural project?

Open source is a very beautiful thing imo, its unironically the closest thing we have to proof utopian socialism could maybe actually work - people volunteering massive amounts of labor out of sheer joy for the task and desire to benefit universal humanity.

Its also the closest thing there is to an anarcho-syndicalist sort of political praxis in the modern world, ie creating your own parallel institution outside existing hierarchies. If we had Open Source Amazon then Bezos wouldnt be rapidly becoming a neofeudal lord of everything.

As history shows, the most critical thing for creating parallel institutions is figuring out how to defend against infiltrators and saboteurs. Thats why socialist orgs developed "democratic centralism", ie central committees, following the party line.

Theres no hierarchy per se but if youre a n00b you ultimately have to deflect to the OG who read the most theory and has organized the most meetings and put in the most sweat. Some mf who looks like this. Otherwise youre an assumed bourgeois counter-revolutionary and need to gtfo

The codes of conduct these open source communities all adopted say not to discriminate against race, gender, blah blah, but also often would sneak in "age" and "skill level"...

Ok so youre a nineteen year old "aspiring woman in tech"? You dont really know much about code per se but you "have passion and you care about the mission"? Ok well maybe theres a "community role" that could suit you, theres always something for which need more hands...

When you think about it, it would be kind of nice if Open Source had HR and marketing departments, wouldn't it? It would let the nerds to not have to worry about that stuff, let them focus on the work they love. Win win, right? In any case what's the harm?

Color revolution in the capital square of Linuxstan! Plucky youths with an optimistic view of the future tossing aside the old strongmen with their rigid thought patterns. Tearing down the last vestiges of the Soviet era and marching into the globally connected modern world.