Movement activism often focuses on economic decisions. Buy this ethically made product; don't buy that one made by a company that funds terrible things. In free software, we encourage people to boycott (for example) Microsoft, and to instead support companies who sell machines with GNU/Linux. It's an intuitive idea that, as individuals wanting to make the world better, we should use our willingness to spend or not spend money to reward those who do right and punish those who do wrong. Throughout history, this has sometimes been effective. But how effective? Can it be dangerous? There is a danger of *reducing* activism and social change strategy to these decisions. We see this in the free software movement, when some activist campaigns aimed at persuading people to stop using proprietary software are met with responses like, "If you don't like Apple products, just don't buy them. Help make free products that are better than theirs. Why campaign against them?" or "How can you criticize proprietary software but still drive a car that has it?" As an advocate, have you ever heard these responses, or felt like a hypocrite, or stumbled trying to explain to others why the situation is more complicated than "just don't buy it"? How do we form a holistic movement strategy for advancing user freedom that takes consumer activism as far as possible, without overprioritizing it? How does or doesn't Debian fit into the picture? I hope those interested in effectively fighting for user freedom will join me as I share thoughts formed from 16 years of experience working on the Free Software Foundation's advocacy efforts, against the backdrop of some highlights from the history of other social movements.
Speakers: John Sullivan