![[object Object]](https://media.mas.to/accounts/avatars/109/287/758/133/964/366/original/0f3099c0adfb36a0.png "[object Object]")
debian, a conservative linux distro, made the conservative choice
and like all conservatives, they voted for the option that’s maximally damaging while pretending to be fair, balanced, and centrist
you’ve, uh, seen this show before, haven’t you
9
Replies
26
Boosts
since this thread has gotten big enough to become discourse:
- no, you can’t determine whether or not the AI ban would have won if the poll had been conducted differently with the numbers from this poll, because that’s not how polling works.
- the flaws in debian’s voting method extend beyond the weird situation with one of the options requiring a supermajority while the others didn’t. for example, they regularly purge voter rolls and make it a burden to get back on, just like conservatives in the US. while I’m sure this is intended to prevent vote fraud, it makes it very likely that people who care about an issue won’t be able to vote on it (I watched this happen to people I know who let their developer status lapse).
- don’t let any of the above distract you too much. debian has been rotting for years, and these systems of inequality were created by assholes. all I intend to do is dissolve the illusion that any of this is representational, credible, or ethical.
a project that votes to allow LLMs is unethical
a project whose voting method resembles systems put in place by American conservatives is also unethical
you have better things to do than associate with a project run by unethical clowns, even and especially if that project voted to do something incredibly shitty under, again, false pretenses
and I do have to remind people: the false pretenses I’m talking about here aren’t the scenario where the vote was spoilt by bad procedure (it absolutely was, but again that’s immaterial)
the false pretenses are that AI can be used responsibly. you can see how that’s gone, already, from the actions and words of debian’s AI lovers right after this vote, from the outcomes of other projects, and from the nature of LLMs themselves.
you don’t in fact have to assign any importance to these people just because they shat out one of the worst governing documents I’ve ever read and called it a constitution
as the system established by that document has produced an outcome whose result is blatantly against the mission of the project (ethical software) and which will be ratified under a false justification, that system has failed.
it’s fortunately easier to leave debian than it is to stop being a citizen of a real corrupt government
you need to kill the neoliberal in your head that tells you an outcome is fair because a shitty government said it was
“responsible AI” from the same philosophy as “clean coal”
the philosophy where you do whatever you want as soon as you find a phrasing for it that disarms susceptible people into thinking it’s good that you’re fucking them over
don’t be disarmed just because you think you like the people involved and you think you witnessed a democratic vote, cause if you do that without considering what happened in its full context, you’re engaging in the same type of thought as the family members you no longer eat dinner with because all they want to talk about is how “but he won democratically though”
if a vote passes under pretenses you know are false, and the vote was decided entirely by a group you aren’t a part of and aren’t likely to be allowed to be part of, that vote doesn’t represent you
especially if the options on the poll were fucked with
I have no idea if this article is incorrect or slop so grain of salt but: https://www.techtimes.com/articles/325094/20260820/debian-votes-eight-ai-proposals-ballot-math-makes-outright-ban-unlikely.htm this popped up while I was researching how debian votes
> Debian's 1,039 active Developers are ranking eight competing proposals on a single ballot right now, and the math of how Debian votes means the option they are most likely to argue about — an outright ban on AI-assisted contributions, written into the project's foundational Social Contract — is also the one least likely to win. The ban requires a 3:1 supermajority to pass because it amends a Foundation Document; every other option on the ballot needs only a simple majority per the Debian Constitution's supermajority rules.
this is uhhh shit
@zzt It's like with survey design. A lot of work goes into writing the questions and answers.
"Do you not agree that there shouldn't be an outright ban on not using LLMs?
A) Yes I agree
B) No of course I agree
C) Yes I think this should be banned
D) No never.
E) Yes, but only a little
F) No, but only a little
G) Elephant
H) Yes, but...
I) No, but..."
Nonsense.
I’d say I don’t know who in the fuck writes a poll where one of the options you can pick effectively can’t win but unfortunately I’m American and I know exactly who does that: conservatives, cause it gets the results they want
