Russell Coker: Elon and Free Speech
Elon Musk has made the news for spending billions to buy a share of Twitter for the alleged purpose of providing free speech. The problem with this claim is that having any company controlling a large portion of the world s communication is inherently bad for free speech. The same applies for Facebook, but that s not a hot news item at the moment.
If Elon wanted to provide free speech he would want to have decentralised messaging systems so that someone who breaks rules on one platform could find another with different rules. Among other things free speech ideally permits people to debate issues with residents of another country on issues related to different laws. If advocates for the Russian government get kicked off Twitter as part of the American sanctions against Russia then American citizens can t debate the issue with Russian citizens via Twitter. Mastodon is one example of a federated competitor to Twitter [1]. With a federated messaging system each host could make independent decisions about interpretation of sanctions. Someone who used a Mastodon instance based in the US could get a second account in another country if they wanted to communicate with people in countries that are sanctioned by the US.
The problem with Mastodon at the moment is lack of use. It s got a good set of features and support for different platforms, there are apps for Android and iPhone as well as lots of other software using the API. But if the people you want to communicate with aren t on it then it s less useful. Elon could solve that problem by creating a Tesla Mastodon server and give a free account to everyone who buys a new Tesla, which is the sort of thing that a lot of Tesla buyers would like. It s quite likely that other companies selling prestige products would follow that example. Everyone has seen evidence of people sharing photos on social media with someone else s expensive car, a Mastodon account on ferrari.com or mercedes.com would be proof of buying the cars in question. The number of people who buy expensive cars new is a very small portion of the world population, but it s a group of people who are more influential than average and others would join Mastodon servers to follow them.
The next thing that Elon could do to kill Twitter would be to have all his companies (which have something more than a dozen verified Twitter accounts) use Mastodon accounts for their primary PR releases and then send the same content to Twitter with a 48 hour delay. That would force journalists and people who want to discuss those companies on social media to follow the Mastodon accounts. Again this wouldn t be a significant number of people, but they would be influential people. Getting journalists to use a communications system increases it s importance.
The question is whether Elon is lacking the vision necessary to plan a Mastodon deployment or whether he just wants to allow horrible people to run wild on Twitter.
The Verge has an interesting article from 2019 about Gab using Mastodon [2]. The fact that over the last 2.5 years I didn t even hear of Gab using Mastodon suggests that the fears of some people significantly exceeded the problem. I m sure that some Gab users managed to harass some Mastodon users, but generally they were apparently banned quickly. As an aside the Mastodon server I use doesn t appear to ban Gab, a search for Gab on it gave me a user posting about being pureblood at the top of the list.
Gab claims to have 4 million accounts and has an estimated 100,000 active users. If 5.5% of Tesla owners became active users on a hypothetical Tesla server that would be the largest Mastodon server. Elon could demonstrate his commitment to free speech by refusing to ban Gab in any way. The Wikipedia page about Gab [3] has a long list of horrible people and activities associated with it. Is that the free speech to associate with Tesla? Polestar makes some nice electric cars that appear quite luxurious [4] and doesn t get negative PR from the behaviour of it s owner, that s something Elon might want to consider.
Is this really about bragging rights? Buying a controlling interest in a company that has a partial monopoly on Internet communication is something to boast about. Could users of commercial social media be considered serfs who serve their billionaire overlord?
As a board, we have been working on several initiatives to make the Foundation a better asset for the GNOME Project. We re working on a number of threads in parallel, so I wanted to explain the big picture a bit more to try and connect together things like the new ED search and the bylaw changes.
We re all here to see free and open source software succeed and thrive, so that people can be be truly empowered with agency over their technology, rather than being passive consumers. We want to bring GNOME to as many people as possible so that they have computing devices that they can inspect, trust, share and learn from.
In previous years we ve tried to boost the relevance of GNOME (or technologies such as GTK) or solicit donations from businesses and individuals with existing engagement in FOSS ideology and technology. The problem with this approach is that we re mostly addressing people and organisations who are already supporting or contributing FOSS in some way. To truly scale our impact, we need to look to the outside world, build better awareness of GNOME outside of our current user base, and find opportunities to secure funding to invest back into the GNOME project.
The Foundation supports the GNOME project with infrastructure, arranging conferences, sponsoring hackfests and travel, design work, legal support, managing sponsorships, advisory board, being the fiscal sponsor of GNOME, GTK, Flathub and we will keep doing all of these things. What we re talking about here are additional ways for the Foundation to support the GNOME project we want to go beyond these activities, and invest into GNOME to grow its adoption amongst people who need it. This has a cost, and that means in parallel with these initiatives, we need to find partners to fund this work.
Neil has previously talked about themes such as education, advocacy, privacy, but we ve not previously translated these into clear specific initiatives that we would establish in addition to the Foundation s existing work. This is all a work in progress and we welcome any feedback from the community about refining these ideas, but here are the current strategic initiatives the board is working on. We ve been thinking about growing our community by encouraging and retaining diverse contributors, and addressing evolving computing needs which aren t currently well served on the desktop.
Initiative 1. Welcoming newcomers. The community is already spending a lot of time welcoming newcomers and teaching them the best practices. Those activities are as time consuming as they are important, but currently a handful of individuals are running initiatives such as GSoC, Outreachy and outreach to Universities. These activities help bring diverse individuals and perspectives into the community, and helps them develop skills and experience of collaborating to create Open Source projects. We want to make those efforts more sustainable by finding sponsors for these activities. With funding, we can hire people to dedicate their time to operating these programs, including paid mentors and creating materials to support newcomers in future, such as developer documentation, examples and tutorials. This is the initiative that needs to be refined the most before we can turn it into something real.
Initiative 2: Diverse and sustainable Linux app ecosystem. I spoke at the Linux App Summit about the work that GNOME and Endless has been supporting in Flathub, but this is an example of something which has a great overlap between commercial, technical and mission-based advantages. The key goal here is to improve the financial sustainability of participating in our community, which in turn has an impact on the diversity of who we can expect to afford to enter and remain in our community. We believe the existence of this is critically important for individual developers and contributors to unlock earning potential from our ecosystem, through donations or app sales. In turn, a healthy app ecosystem also improves the usefulness of the Linux desktop as a whole for potential users. We believe that we can build a case for commercial vendors in the space to join an advisory board alongside with GNOME, KDE, etc to input into the governance and contribute to the costs of growing Flathub.
Initiative 3: Local-first applications for the GNOME desktop. This is what Thib has been starting to discuss on Discourse,
A new release 0.4.19 of 











Recently I've been getting much more interested in the "retro" computers of my youth, partly because I've been writing crazy code in Z80 assembly-language, and partly because I've been preparing to introduce our child to his first computer:
Almost ten months ago, I


