Video download link | md5sum f42b90f3c247b740f3792c1e5acb8a07 Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Uses Apple Terminology of Monopoly Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0



Summary: Just like the Linux Foundation, which ostensibly supports Linux and which tries to claim that it supports Linux, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF, which is a lot older) claims to oppose monopolies and defend digital rights when it is in fact oftentimes siding with the worst offenders, including Apple, Google, and Microsoft

THE Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is very often covered here (108 posts in the EFF category) because we have a love-hate relationship with it. Sometimes we're not even sure what "EFF" means or stands for because it has become a mixture of good (benevolent) people and not so good people. With the founders out of the way, the name and the site remain, but the mission has been derailed.

The EFF changed; with awards to Microsoft, bribes from Google and Apple fandom it just hasn't been the same in recent years. The same is true for the Linux Foundation (LF). Does the LF actually claim to support Linux? Is there a cite-able charter or mission statement to that effect anymore? Well, it changed over time; and they changed many pages that used to support GNU/Linux. Maybe the changes (and subsequent attempt to hide old pages) could be worth examining in an article or two some time in the future, but today we focus on the EFF. So the LF ostensibly supports Linux. Which aspect? Development or marketing or both? Or neither? Over time the LF neglects Linux completely and days ago the latest newsletter of the LF was released, then promoted in Linux.com; Linux was barely mentioned at all, as we've noted already in Daily Links. LF wasn't always like this; they used to say pro-Linux things, do pro-Linux things, including protecting the brand, licences etc. Nowadays the LF 'dilutes' the brand; they used to prioritise Free software, but then they became GitHub outsourcers and avid Microsoft shills (for a bribe; it's like OSI in that regard, except OSI does this with a much smaller budget).

But going back to the EFF, is it abandoning digital rights and ignoring policies/threats which it was established to tackle? Citing this new blog post, one person told us that the EFF now calls installation "sideloading", which tells a lot about how far they have fallen and how they are now soft on the agendas of Apple and the others despite possible protestations to the contrary. Looking backwards (see the video), the EFF has been doing this for a very long time.

We've given many other examples over the years. The EFF of today isn't what it used to be. Judge them by what they do, not just what they say, and sometimes the things they say are also a giveaway. Maybe the core issue is the recruitment or the selection. Maybe the principles just aren't there anymore. As noted in the video, one could notice the pivot minutes after Barlow's (co-founder) untimely demise and the other co-founder was actually getting kicked out, based on The Register, so completely different people now spearhead the same organisation. It's also very important to point out that the EFF was once a leader and enjoyed greatness in a variety of domains, including privacy and campaigning against software patents. ⬆