The Open Source world is no stranger to drama.  Heck, if it's a day that ends in "Ay!", there's likely some random, usually overblown, drama happening in one Open Source organization or another.

But, sometimes, within that drama, there exists a bigger story.

Such is the case with "Red Hat vs Hyprland".

Within this drama there lies a tale of extremist poltiics, abuse of corporate power, and silencing of political "undesirables".  The things we learn here -- burried beneath the layers of drama -- are deeply disturbing, with significant ramifications for the entire Open Source industry.

Cutting through the noise

As with all drama, there's a lot of finger pointing.  And... noise.  So much noise.  Let's cut through all of that and get right to the facts.

The basic facts of this event:

1. The core developer behind Hyprland (a tiling Linux window manager which has gained significant traction), a man who goes by the name "Vaxry", has been banned from any involvement in the Freedesktop project (an umbrella project covering Xorg, Wayland, and many other core Linux Desktop projects).
2. This ban means that Vaxry will not be allowed to report bugs or submit code patches to Freedesktop projects -- often directly relevant to his own work on the Hyprland window manager.
3. The ban (affecting Freedesktop) was enacted by a Red Hat representative (using a RedHat.com email address), based on a perceived 2 year old "Code of Conduct Violation" on a Hyprland chat server.
4. Red Hat, Freedesktop, and Hyprland are all separate organizations.

As with any drama, there's a great deal of other information out there -- along with frenzied onlookers yelling about it from the sidelines -- but those are the core actions and facts.

The key takeaway: A representative from Red Hat was using corporate power to force a person out of other (read: non-Red Hat) organizations.  For reasons not related to Red Hat.  Nor related to the organization the person was being banned from.

In essence, Red Hat flexing it's muscle -- bending large portions of the Open Source world to do it's bidding.

By itself, that's bad enough.  But it gets worse.  Much worse.

What was the "violation"?

In order to understand how truly disturbing this issue is, we need to know a few additional details.  Starting with the initial "Code of Conduct Violation".

Back in 2022 -- yes, two years ago -- on the Discord chat server for the Hyprland window manager project, a man who identified as "Trans" listed his preferred prouns as "she/her".

A moderator on that Hyprland chat server changed that "Trans" person's pronouns to list as "who/cares".

Flash forward to 2024, and this "who/cares" action comes to the attention of another man who identifies as "Trans".  An employee of Red Hat named Lyude Paul.

To give you an idea of the motivations of the actions which follow: Lyude Paul has a publicly stated goal of "bullying" anyone who does not adequately show respect to "Trans" issues, as shown in his social media posts.

Lyude Paul also promotes the idea that "right-wing people are not welcomed" in organizations.

As Lyude Paul has a stated objective of "bullying" people -- making sure they are "not welcomed" -- if they do not profess the correct political ideals (or do not support "Trans" activism in the proper way)... it is not entirely surprising that this gentleman would use his position at Red Hat to ban those he disagrees with.

And that is exactly what happened.

Lyude Paul -- using his Red Hat email address -- informed Vaxry (the lead developer of Hyprland -- the project where the "who/cares" chat server incident occurred) that he was now banned from the entirety of the Freedesktop project and organization.

An important note: When a person sends an email from their corporate email account, they are acting on behalf of the corporation.  That is a hard and fast rule that has been in place since... well... forever.  Likewise Red Hat has not distanced itself from these actions in the least.

You can read the full emails, from Lyude Paul / Red Hat, as published by Vaxry.

The Red Hat Problem

This is an example of Red Hat, a corporation with a wild history of discrimination and censorship, using their corporate power (and strength within the Linux and Open Source world) to bully and silence those they politically disagree with.

Red Hat could condemn these actions (which were done in Red Hat's name) by their employee.  They have not done so.

None of this should be terribly surprising, considering what we already know about the IBM subsidiary.  They have a history of taking extreme political stances... and they actively discriminate against employees who deviate from their allowed, always extremely politically Leftist, ideals.

• Red Hat holds official "Anti-White" training programs.
• Red Hat / IBM employees are given "badges" for being a good "ally".
• Red Hat has a "Word Usage Council" where they actively find words and thoughts to ban.
• Red Hat / IBM has racist hiring quotas and more.

Considering Red Hat's historical stances and actions, it is no surprise that an employee of Red Hat would be able to use the corporate power of Red Hat to bully others who possessed the wrong ideas (as was the publicly stated objective of Lyude Paul).

A singular bit of drama... and a trend.

This particular incident has elicited strong reactions -- and has grabbed the attention of many across the Linux and Open Source industry.  Lots of drama.  Lots of opportunities to quote people who are making big, outlandish statements.

And most of that drama is little more than distracting fluff.

But the core -- the facts -- are truly disturbing.  And, once again, Red Hat finds itself at the center of another story where people are being discriminated against.

A few closing thoughts.

• If this sort of bullying, censorship, and blacklisting of those with the "wrong politics" is allowed to continue... it will get worse.
• Lyude Paul is guilty of far more extreme "Code of Conduct" violations than Vaxry -- as is shown in the screenshots above.  Yet Lyude Paul has not been banned, censored, or punished in any way by Red Hat or Freedesktop.
• It would appear fairly obvious that the "Code of Conduct", at least in this case, is being used as a weapon to selectively harm specific individuals.
• Considering Red Hat / IBM's history and dedication to discriminating against specific groups, it seems a fair assumption that these actions are not only allowed but encouraged by corporate leadership.  Should that not be the case, The Lunduke Journal encourages Red Hat and IBM to make a statement regarding it.  If such a statement is made, The Lunduke Journal will publish it in full.
• Will Open Source organizations -- such as Freedesktop -- allow these sorts of discriminatory actions to continue?
• Should Freedesktop, and others, continue allowing this type of discrimination... what result will that have on existing Open Source projects and users of those projects?

The Lunduke Journal has reached out to representatives from IBM and Red Hat for comment.  As of the time of publication The Lunduke Journal has received no response.

One of my super-powers (apparently) is writing words which burrow into the brains of many nerds... driving them slowly insane.

Tech Journalists, Software Developers, Project Managers... even your average computer nerds are susceptible to my wizardly words of wickedness.

And, because I have to see their linguistic detritus, I am now going to subject all of you to the insanity which they spew.

I present to you: "Crazy Tech People Who Hate Lunduke - Part I"

Yeah.  Part One.

Fair Warning: I've censored some of the more offensive words in the following screenshots.  But, just the same, their declarations aren't exactly clean and wholesome.

OSNews.com

We begin with Thom Holwerda, the editor of OSNews.com.  He recently posted this delightful gem over on Mastodon (a social network filled with people who are definitely very well adjusted *wink wink*).

"Hey Lunduke," I hear you asking.  "Could you provide us a single screenshot that gives us a glimpse into the minds of the average Leftist Tech Journalist?"

Ta-da.

Curious why certain "Tech News" sites refuse to cover Lunduke Journal articles (no matter how massive the news)?  I think this helps to explain it.  This is how they see people.

Also... nEaT caPITaLizATioN, DudE!

GLIMPSE (a GIMP fork)

The creator of GLIMPSE (a fork of GIMP) recently published this regarding my coverage of Mozilla and Firefox.

I'm going to go ahead and quote that.  Because it's awesome.

"If you're angry at Mozilla because Bryan Lunduke said mean things about them, then as someone whose previous project was torn apart after one of his videos called it a "woke fork", I kindly invite you to go [CENSORED] yourself."

Apparently I, Bryan Lunduke, single handedly "tore apart" an entire project (the GLIMPSE project, I assume) by simply mentioning it.

I'm going to be honest with you... I had completely forgotten that project existed.  But, according to the project founder, I "tore it apart" with my word magic.

Not gonna lie.  Feeling pretty powerful right now.

Wonder which project I should mention next...

elementary OS

Here is a -- definitely very sane and reasonable -- post from the founder (and currently sole employee) of elementary OS (a fork of Ubuntu).  That post is entitled "Assault, death, transphobia, etc".

I'm not 100% sure... but I think he's saying I... took out a hit on him?  Like... in a mafia movie?  By... posting an article about computers?  And if someone else shares the link to that article... that person is now part of... that hit?  Or something?

Or maybe my words are like that VHS tape in The Ring?  You know... you read a few of my words then a creeply lady starts crawling around your laptop before you die?

Huh!

Well.  Either way.  You heard it here first, folks.  Sharing links to my words is, like, literally murder.  The future is weird!

Rent free, baby!

What have we learned today?

• My words drive Tech Journalists to mADnEsS.
• I can "tear apart" open source projects with two words.
• If you share a link to my words, you are comitting murder.

One thing is also clear: They can't stop talking about me... my wizard words compel them.

In fact, it's gotten to the point where people are issuing "Stop reposting Bryan Lunduke Challenges".

If past performance is any indication of future performance... that challenge will end poorly.  Especially after I write up some more of my Black Magic Words of Wonder.

Whew!

Wonder what we'll learn in Part II?

Censorship of online discourse is a major point of disagreement between the political Left and Right.

Tech organizations perceived as "Politically Left-leaning", tend to support the banning of ideas from Online publishing platforms (Social Media, YouTube, Forums, etc.) -- Mozilla's infamous declaration of "we need more than deplatforming" being one such example.

On the flipside, most moves towards less censorship are regarded as being "Politically Right-leaning" -- a great example being Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, and subsequent loosening of some censorship rules on the X / Twitter platform.

But -- among those in the Tech Industry -- what are the true numbers of those who support the censorship of ideas?

What percentage of those on the Left, Center, and Right (politically) actually support the complete banning of certain ideas from online publishing?

The Lunduke Journal asked 7,200 people in the Tech Industry for their opinions on the topic.  These respondents represented a wide range of technical, political, and demographic backgrounds.

Here are the results.

43.8% of all Tech Industry respondents, who identified as "Left-Leaning" politically, said they supported the total banning of at least one idea from all online publishing platforms.

Compare that with 19.5% for political "Centrists" and 8.2% for those who said they were "Right-Leaning".

The exact question, asked in the survey, is as follows:

"Which of the following ideas should be censored or banned from Social Media, Community Forums, YouTube, or other public publishing platforms?

 

Note: Not ideas which you agree or disagree with.  Only those which should not be allowed.

 

Check all ideas which should not be allowed on public platforms."

The 6 following options were presented:

• The 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
• The 2016 election was stolen from Clinton.
• The COVID vaccines are potentially dangerous.
• Climate Change is not a real threat.
• There are only two genders (male and female).
• January 6th was a dangerous insurrection.

Six ideas, from different ends of the political spectrum (and touching on different types of topics).

Here is the breakdown, by political leaning, for each idea:

The numbers speak for themselves, but a few quick takeaways:

1. There appears to be no topic where a majority (over 50%), of any political leaning, supports full censorship.
2. Just the same, a significant percentage (between 18% and 33%) of Left-leaning people advocated for a full banning of specific ideas and topics which disagreed with their core political messaging.
3. Nearly half of all Left-Leaning people (43.8%) support the total banning of at least one concept from being discussed online.
4. When the ideas agreed with Left-leaning political messaging -- such as "2016 election stolen from Clinton" or "Jan 6th was an insurrection" -- Left-leaning support for censorship dropped significantly (down as far as 3.3%).
5. Right-leaning support for idea banning stayed very low (3% or lower) and consistent, regardless of the idea (including Left-wing political messaging).

In other words...

When an idea contradicts Left-wing talking points or values... a significant percentage of Leftists believe it should not be allowed to be discussed online.  By anyone.  It becomes a forbidden concept entirely.

People on the Right, by and large, do not wish to restrict the ideas of anyone.  Even when those ideas are ones which contradict Right-leaning talking points or values.

About The Great Tech Industry Demographics Survey

This report is derived from data obtained between February 22nd and March 10th of 2024, as part of the Great Tech Industry Demographics Survey.  During this survey, 7,200 respondents (a sample size many times larger than used by most polling agencies in national elections) answered 46 questions on a wide variety of technical, political, personal, and IT work-place related topics.

The survey was distributed by a wide range of writers, podcasters, YouTubers, & tech enthusiasts -- representing a variety of computing preferences (Windows vs Mac vs Linux, etc.) and political leanings.

The full, anonymous data will be released -- to allow for additional public analysis -- following a round of initial reporting by The Lunduke Journal.

Become a Supporter

If you are not already a subscriber to Conservative Nerds (part of The Lunduke Journal), now's a great time.  At the very least, get yourself a free subscription so you don't miss out.

Find more information (including RSS Podcast feeds, links to some of the big shows, how to become a whistleblower, how to gain access to other parts of The Lunduke Journal, and more) at the Lunduke Journal Link Central page.