The rest of the world is moving on, and I'm fine with that. I'm particularly excited to see products like the Orange Pi 5, with up to 32 gigs of memory and a fast eight core CPU, and the 16 gig model is available now, for less than the cost of an 8 gig Pi 4.
https://raspberrypi.social/@Raspberry_Pi/109476972427437410
https://twitter.com/Raspberry_Pi/status/1600761840367448064
https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/meet-raspberry-pis-maker-in...
Even when many, many people told them that they hadn't thought through that hiring a surveillance cop who used Raspberry Pis to spy on people is creepy and insensitive, they doubled down and blocked many, many people who complained.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisstokelwalker/raspb...
https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/09/rpi_maker_in_residenc...
Now this is bad all by itself, but that's not all. In an interview shortly after this, Liz Upton, Raspberry Pi's cofounder and chief marketing officer showed she's either REALLY ignorant or is intentionally trolling anyone who cares about this. She said:
Liz Upton, Raspberry Pi’s cofounder and chief marketing officer, told BuzzFeed she believes that much of the issue stems not from the hiring of the former police officer who admitted to using Raspberry Pis for covert surveillance, but instead from a picture the account posted to Mastodon a day earlier showing pigs in blankets. “We didn’t put a content warning on it, because we don’t put a content warning on meat,” Upton said. “There were quite a few people who tried to start dogpiling on that.”
Really? Does she REALLY think we're all just a bunch of angry vegans / vegetarians who are just upset about a photo? Or is she really that clueless? It's hard to tell, but I, for one, wouldn't trust a human like that with judgement about other humans.
Everyone makes mistakes. Many people have differences of opinion. Those shouldn't get one ostracized from society.
I still don't like to punish individuals (or organizations) for genuine differences in opinion from my own. I don't like cancel culture, even if I agree with what's being cancelled. If a company is engaging in something evil, like workplace safety violations, pollution, or corruption, I'll be the first to join the boycott.
However, if it's a question of religious views, polarizing issues like abortion / gun rights / etc., or whatnot, I'd like people to have freedom of expression, and to be able to talk about their views. That's part of a healthy society, and that include politicians and CEOs.
The exception there is if there's a clear financial conflict-of-interest (like an insurance company weighing in on abortion rights, a gun company on 2nd amendment, or a lot of issues on taxation). There, I'm cynical and don't think views expressed are honest, so much as self-serving.
Outside of cases like that, though, I think people should be free to express their honest views without consequences (beyond an unpleasant discussion).
Even on harmful issues -- like racism, sexism, or whatnot -- I still much prefer views out-of-the-closet than ones which are closeted. I live in a far-left town which is both hyper-racist, hyper-xenophobic, and hyper-woke. The latter makes it impossible to address the former. You can't hold an honest conversation about race, and so racist views persist, unarticulated.
I used to live in a moderate-right town, where while more racism was expressed (since people spoke openly), there was much less racism in practice. I'm an immigrant, and did much better there.
I think it's healthy to engage RPi about this issue, constructively (as in with a conversation). I don't think it's healthy to stop buying from them.
It's wholly the fact that they did what they did in a very "in your face" way, as though they knew they'd be alienating people. Then, blocking people who weren't even saying anything bad was not a good way to handle it. But pretending the problem is something else entirely? That's some gaslighting BS right there, and that shows they have zero concern about the people they've ticked off, or perhaps even knew they were going to upset people, but did it anyway.
It's one thing to have differences. It's another to wholly not acknowledge them.
Imagine this: if instead of being a cop who used Pis for covert surveillance, what if their new hire had been a part of Iran's "morality police"? Is it OK because it was technically legal, even if it's abhorrent, inhumane behavior?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with boycotting a company that, by their direct actions, tells us they're completely OK with police surveillance. On the other hand, there's something wrong with suggesting that people, including victims of police surveillance and police brutality, should not stop buying from a company that glorifies police surveillance.
We're agreed as to why it's offensive. There's no reason to beat a dead horse. A question is what's an effective change tactic. Simply lashing out is not an effective tactic; that's what toddlers to, and it rarely achieves the desired result.
If I don't like morality police in Iran, I can:
1. Completely isolate Iran. That's the most aggressive tactic, and very much a "tough on Iran" stance. It also almost guarantees no change will happen (see Afghanistan today).
2. Engage with Iran. This gives room for dialogue. That's a lot more likely to be effective, especially if I've taken time to engage and build trust first.
3. *Strategically* apply pressure. I've had a lot of luck with this as well.
There are many others.
The boycott tactic is a tough tactic, but I don't see it working towards the results I want. If RPi believes surveillance is right, but leads to a sales backlash, the most that can achieve is being more quiet about it. To me, that's the worst possible outcome.
At the same time, other companies will learn that speaking their views openly is dangerous. That has a lot more cascading effects I don't like.