Monthly Archives: November 2022

China’s intimidation of academic institutions

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged China fandom science fiction on by

For some time I’ve known it’s dangerous to criticize the Chinese government on some American campuses. Emerson College investigated a student group that dared to criticize the Chinese rulers and then suspended it, and as far as I can tell it has never backed away from its contemptible decree. Mark Wrighton, president of George Washington University, declared he was “personally offended” by posters criticizing China and would “undertake an effort to determine who is responsible.” He backed off when he found himself facing more publicity than he bargained for.

Fandom gets a large proportion of its new people from college students and recent graduates. If they learn there that they should shut up about China while on campus, they may carry that habit over into their fannish activities. This, I’m sure, is one reason for the lack of widespread calls to boycott the Chengdu Worldcon. But how widespread is this effect? Are Emerson and GWU outliers? Lately I’ve looked into the ways China intimidates Western educational institutions and found that varying levels of intimidation are common.
(more…)

A quick note on Bookwyrm

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged books Internet software on by

With the explosion of Mastodon use, some people may have come across Bookwyrm, a federated network that uses ActivityPub protocols. It’s supposed to be something like a decentralized alternative to Goodreads. I was excited about it at first, but fortunately was quickly warned about its license. It’s unsuitable for me, for independent writers, and for advocates of freedom. I thought about whether I should even mention it, but decided I should post a brief warning.

The problem is write at the top: “This is anti-capitalist software, released for free use by individuals and organizations that do not operate by capitalist principles.” Software licenses that restrict who can use the software and for what purpose are almost always a bad idea, even when the restriction isn’t inherently bad, as it is in this case. Open-source code which only some people are allowed to use isn’t open-source.

Most obviously, it implicitly excludes publishing houses and self-employed authors. Organizations that aren’t employee-owned are explicitly excluded. That’s worse than senseless. Depending on how you read it, it could also exclude people who live by capitalist principles, such as giving value for value and rejecting governmental control over what can be published. ????
(more…)