Visions for the future #7
Conversation
|
Yes this is absolutely critical. Pick winnable battles only. |
|
However, even deleting accounts is too much to start. I think "use" is sufficient. |
|
Rephrased that part. What about the Apple ads on the platform? That's a bit of a stretch maybe? |
index.html
Outdated
| </hgroup> | ||
| <h2>Our Vision for the Future</h2> | ||
| <ul> | ||
| <li>Removal of Affiliation with Twitter/X: @SwiftLang deactivates their account on Twitter/X and stops posting there.</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Following your comments @mattmassicotte @DivineDominion and expanding without (hopefully) using triggering sentiments:
| <li>Removal of Affiliation with Twitter/X: @SwiftLang deactivates their account on Twitter/X and stops posting there.</li> | |
| <li><strong>Stop Funding X Platform:</strong> Discontinue ads and product announcements on platforms that don't align with the Swift community values.</li> | |
| <li><strong>Inclusive Channels:</strong> Establish @SwiftLang, developer, marketing and user resources on neutral, first party or globally accessible platforms or federated networks.</li> | |
| <li><strong>Safe Events:</strong> Provide and adhere to guidelines for organizing in-person events like WWDC in a way that is safe and welcoming for all attendees. Ensure events are held in locations and territories that respect the rights and safety of all participants, considering local laws, cultural attitudes, and security conditions.</li> | |
| <li><strong>Swift Transparency:</strong> Foster a more open communication between Apple and the Swift community to address concerns collaboratively.</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Inclusive Channels" -- nothing to object here, nothing to add 👍
"Safe Events" would imply that hosting an event at all at least in some parts of the U.S. would be a no-go, right? That sounds both like a terribly simple thing to do (e.g. book a place in Portugal or wherever else), but not easy at the same time (HQ/Apple Park being located where it is)
|
I'm very torn here. Because on the one hand, I want to see lots of things change. But on the other hand, I want to fight winnable battles. I think use of X is a possibly. But on the other hand, do more people get interested by expanding the goals? |
|
I'm good with stating X as the only goal. Just some context about my suggestion above: For the 4 points, I rephrased the Swift community's own code of conduct, which should provide the basis for such decisions. Thinking ahead — WWDC is just around the corner, it would be a shame if that's an “Apple Park in-person” event as clearly it will be problematic to attend for the same reasons we can't see ourselves contributing to X. So “Act Different” would mean reestablishing the baseline of the code of conduct for the community as a whole (rather than a specific reaction to a singular event). |
|
Ohh I didn't realize that you'd used the Swift's community guidelines. That was very clever! I've been trying to thinking broadly though. This isn't about just the Swift organization. There aren't that many developers out there after all, though we are a uniquely powerful group. But, allowing this to be open-ended lets an individual decide how to "act" and what amount of "different" they need to see. Even if they are just an Apple fan! And it's true that some people will never be satisfied. But I think we are entering a protracted war, and we've got to be tactical. |
|
I see your point, sounds good! Let's go with a focused CTA for X only. |
|
I received advice (from a Ukrainian no less) on ways to effectively run boycotts that clear calls to action is important. But I've been thinking, is this wise in this case? Could fully open-ended be easier to rally around? |
|
Macworld Boston 1997-The Microsoft Deal At the Macworld 1997 conference Steve Jobs, who had just returned to Apple, was forced to announce the deal with Microsoft that would require Internet Explorer to ship as the default browser on Macs. The crowd turned ugly. Boos. Heckles. Shouting. He then said:
And announced that Apple will ship multiple browsers and users can choose their own default after initial launch. Which kind of gets back to what I mentioned at the meeting about the cultural roots of companies like Apple in Silicon Valley. The US "counterculture" of the 60s didn't really have a single political alignment. The Silicon Valley counterculture, which the technology industry incorporated a lot of philosophy from, skewed libertarian… not socialist or progressive. The hippies that built these companies did not want more rules. They weren't complete anarchists… they followed rules when they had no choice… but they also looked for opportunities to subvert rules or "prank" the ones making the rules. Some observations and thoughts:
A side-observation here is my personal preference would be a way to frame a protest against Swift independently from a protest against Apple. People can choose to participate in both, and we do have reason to believe that Apple has veto power over what happens inside Swift, but I'm not sure that framing a protest against the Swift Ecosystem in terms of what we need Apple to change (advertising on Twitter) is going to be the most effective way of thinking about things. |
|
I really appreciate the thoughts here. I believe Bluesky, at a minimum, is basically confirmed at this point: swiftlang/swift-org-website#905 I also largely agree with what you are saying, that making these distinct could help. However, I think it takes away, somewhat, from the leverage we have. You don't think so? |
I don't have a super strong opinion either side here (one protest vs two protests) as being right or wrong. I think I would lean personally in favor of two protests with the expectation most engineers in the Apple Protest would probably also support the Swift Protest. The other direction is a little more complex. What about an engineer that supports a Swift Protest (if the goal is to diversify from posting only to Twitter) but does not support an Apple Protest (if the goal is to stop funding paid ads on Twitter). I think this was the goal I was getting at previously… an engineer that sees the addition of Mastodon or BlueSky as adding choice (which they perceive as a net positive) but sees the rule that Apple has to stop choosing to run ads on Twitter as a net negative (by restricting the choice of Apple). These two protests could still be presented under the umbrella of Act Different… no need for two different channels or websites. I was just thinking about any way these could be communicated in a way that engineers might see some extra ideological flexibility between the two choices. I do believe the messaging I have heard so far is that engineers should not need to feel as if they are under some purity test. I think maybe what I was thinking here was along those lines but just presenting the Swift and the Apple situations as distinct to maybe clarify for engineers that they have choices too when it comes to how they choose to support. But I could be wrong about all that. These were just some thoughts I had. It's possible this could reduce the leverage for the Apple specific protest… but it might also broaden the scope and audience of the Swift specific protests… which then could increase the leverage for the Apple specific protest by proxy. But it's difficult to see in the future about that. |
|
Ok I think I understand, and I really appreciate you going deeper here. Especially connecting it to the idea of "choice", which I did not immediately get. Given all this, especially now that Swift is establishing a presence on Bluesky, it's possible that re-framing this to ask Apple to join Bluesky as a corporation could fit in better with the idea of roots you talk about. But I think as a means of rallying support, it would be very weak. |
|
https://forums.swift.org/t/social-media-expansion-to-mastodon-and-bluesky/77999 Nice, so Bluesky and Mastodon for SwiftLang are settled. I wouldn't mind still listing this point with a ticked-off checkbox, though :) As a start towards a better future. |
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj54eq4vejo Any interest in adding a statement about support for E2E ADP? |
|
Please ignore that the layout looks a bit wonky with this, see #20 :) |
|
Oh, as to why these color choices: I'm too color blind to pick anything, ever, myself. So I use a palette and go for tonal (light/dark) contrast. Please feel free to bring your own color and replace it on this branch without asking! |
|
I absolutely love the sentiments here! And I also think the "checked!" idea is very clever. But I'm hesitating on the specific points... are we certain this even needs to be specific? |
Could you follow up with a concrete proposal or example? Like: What degree of specificity do you have in mind? Otherwise I find it hard to follow |
|
So, consensus -- very powerful when being had, very show-stopping otherwise :) I believe @kkostov's suggestion wasn't outright rejected, but @mattmassicotte isn't comfortable with the wording. Now while I'd love to move forward, I don't want to make guesses until we hit the spot (that's both frustrating and time-intensive), so @mattmassicotte could you get more specific on this? Otherwise I'd close w/o merging in a week or so. |
|
First, sorry about dropping off here. I had a few things going on that were distracting me. I can speak only for myself, of course. But, I'm just not going to be asking for any specific actions. I have described how I plan on applying pressure. And I think that would be very effective for others to do. But I want people to feel like, no matter how they could participate, that would be good. I very deliberately avoided the term "boycott" and I want to continue to do so, because I think it leads to all-or-nothing thinking. But I don't think it is fair for me to dictate how others should choose to proceed! In fact that would be exactly counter to my whole idea here. |
|
How would you feel about phrasing a couple of invitations yourself instead in a PR?
|
|
I think another discussion I see online is that Apple should distribute WWDC this year. Engineers outside US that are blocked on traveling can attend their local WWDC. AFAIK Apple is not planning distributed events other than maybe "watch parties". |
|
Thank you for doing this! I do want to re-iterate that I don't feel comfortable being the gatekeeper of this initiative. But you asked and I'll provide feedback. First, I'm not sure that, strategically, it makes sense to make this so developer-focused. You don't have to be a developer to be upset, and making the developer community more comfortable isn't necessarily sufficient. I think appealing to Apple fans, who might also be very interested in OS betas for example, is good. Second, I believe the emotional impact of such a movement is paramount. And that (again, in my opinion) demands simplicity. "Continued advertising on X adds risk to future Apple product releases" That's what I'm focusing on. It doesn't mean advertising choices are the only problem, just that it is the current problem. And critically it is a battle that I believe is winnable. X is not, nor will it ever be again, a growing platform. "Apple once asked us to think different. Now we find ourselves in a time that demands we do more than just think." "We must act different." "There are many ways to help. Skip that new iPhone. Don't provide feedback. How will you act different?" |
|
Do we have plans to update actidfferent.org with more any content other than the current placeholder? This might be a good idea to have ready for WWDC if you are interested in shipping something live to prod. |
Especially this part is not meant to be taken as-is and requires discussion.
What are the complaints? → What is the ideal future?
I picked the 1 thing that is not that high of a bar: Twitter.
I left out things like Tim Cook's private (!) donation to Trump. While there are people asking for Cook to resign, his donation is not an Apple matter in the strict sense. I believe it's important to be careful not to mix private and corporate too much here to remain professional.