UPDATE: they have dropped Persona!

[liaizon@social.wake.st]

I wonder how @fdroidorg (https://opencollective.com/f-droid) feels about this? I have a feeling they wouldn't be too happy.

[cwebber@social.coop]

@liaizon oh no

[liaizon@social.wake.st]

I have a feeling @mollyim (https://opencollective.com/mollyim) might not want to be supporting this initiative.

[leonieke@squilla.vitaulium.eu]

@liaizon And you know @gotosocial is not going to like it!

[liaizon@social.wake.st]

@cwebber for fucks sake I really don't want to be the one to be unloading this sort of horrible news on the fediverse. I would so much rather shitpost about the protocol wars. But no one was talking about this and its so so depressing and they need to change course...

[liaizon@social.wake.st]

@leonieke they are using Open Source Europe luckily who is a different fiscal host https://opencollective.com/europe so at least they aren't currently affected (directly) tho its still Open Collective adding the API to the underlying project.

[leonieke@squilla.vitaulium.eu]

@liaizon Ahhhh, good to know - thanks! (Slightly relieved)

[lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me]

@liaizon Kind of wonder if it'll be legal on the non-US side of things (like in regards to GDPR) as that could add legal backing to opposing it.

[yacodes@mastodon.social]

@leonieke @liaizon it is also possible to support GoToSocial on LiberaPay https://liberapay.com/GoToSocial/. Which I cannot say about Guix, for example…

[seabass@social.seabass.systems]

Some unrelated privacy concerns about accessing the Open Source Collective funds have already been raised - so it's extra disappointing to me to see another dimension being added to the issue. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, @liaizon

[nullagent@partyon.xyz]

I work with an NPO which currently uses Open Collective and likely would vote to stop using Open Collective if this level of corporate doxxing is required to interact with their platform.

Don't dare open source hackers, we can switch/build services in a heartbeat.

We are not trapped like teenagers hooked on discord, we can simply leave and never look back if forced.

@liaizon @scan

[opsocket@mamot.fr]

@liaizon what's up @Betree ?

[leonieke@squilla.vitaulium.eu]

@yacodes Yeah, I've set up alternative payment there - waiting for approval

[liaizon@social.wake.st]

@seabass thanks for the reply Sebastian. I am a huge fan of F-Droid and a daily user. I have great respect for F-Droid and wish it the utmost success. This situation seems like it might need a quick response by the community and I think Open Collective must really not be thinking very deeply about who they are representing if they are making moves like this. I would hope this issue can be brought up internally and maybe some peer pressure from orgs like yours might really help this situation.

[liaizon@social.wake.st]

@lanodan I can't imagine how all of this sort of sharing of personal data with "partners" would work in a legal sense but it sure seems like its common in Valley startups

[sef@social.coop]

@nullagent @liaizon @scan
> build services in a heartbeat

I believe that when I see it 😛

[seabass@social.seabass.systems]

@liaizon It's always nice to hear from users, and on behalf of the project, thanks for your kind words! I agree that this is an unfortunate decision - made independently by both Open Collective and Open Source Collective, it seems - that has the potential to harm lots of FOSS maintainers. I hope you can understand that it is, well, a delicate matter to raise complaints against the very organization that holds >80% of our funds, but I shall do my best to address this with sensitivity and expediency.

[havchr@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@liaizon @scan The First Person project is needed quickly. TLDR , proof of identification without breaching privacy. Linux Foundation is the first test case for it to avoid Jia-Tan-like attacks. Why OpenCollective needs the identity verification provider in the first place though, what are they using it for?

[lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me]

@liaizon Yeah, it seems like the vast majority of VC-backed or publicly traded companies from the silly con-valley has their business model based on privacy violations.

[yakmacker@society.kalli.st]

@liaizon @lanodan behind the scenes it always amounts to selling the data to the highest bidder. Often with very sloppy access controls.

Even companies that have totally unrelated business models will do this.