It's Not About How Developers Vote
In choosing distros, we're apparently meant to check politics as if the technical nature of operating systems does not matter. It's about how one votes (or claims to vote). In security, likewise, we're meant to follow what GAFAM says (because it's "big"; Andy recently tackled this fallacy), even if GAFAM strives to put back doors in everything and works for toxic politicians.
GAFAM gets a 'free pass' when it's an active instrument of dictatorship. Follow the money.
Moments ago the FSF said it would fund efforts to effectively replace the Microsoft-controlled restricted boot, still promoted by the very same people who tried to decapitate the FSF.
This isn't about politics, it's about users being in control of their own computers and computing.
Obsessing over how developers vote leads us astray and further away from what makes a user-respecting system. Slop, for example, takes freedom away and violates licences, including copyleft. █