OBS Studio gains another big sponsor with Facebook

I’m not sure what to think about all these huge corporations supporting free open source stuff (like Epic does).

Sure it’s good to see money going to the FOSStuff, but i cannot NOT think that’s a facade, and very much like greenwashing from big companies responsible for a big part of the pollution, or donations from tax-avoider billionaires.

Like, they give several millions to charity, in front of the media of course, and people say bravo. But what they give is a tiny % of what they should pay in tax every years if they didn’t cheat the tax systems.


Last edited by Tchey on 28 February 2020 at 6:57 pm UTC

Quoting: TcheyI’m not sure what to think about all these huge corporations supporting free open source stuff (like Epic does).

I mean, you're right to be suspicious of basically anything these companies do, but the reasoning seems pretty straightforward here. Facebook has been getting into livestreaming and so they pour money into an open source livestreaming program; kinda like how Valve has invested in WINE related projects.

They are destroying the world tho. All Copperations Are Bastards, after all

Quoting: TcheySure it’s good to see money going to the FOSStuff, but i cannot NOT think that’s it’s a facade, and very much like greenwashing from big companies responsible for a big part of the pollution, or donations from tax-avoider billionaires.

Like, they give several millions to charity, in front of the media of course, and people say bravo. But what they give is a tiny % of what they should pay in tax every years if they didn’t cheat the tax systems.

I think you have the wrong idea of the tax incentives for donations in the U.S. The tax system promotes donations of your choosing. This is a power to the people kind of thing. The alternative is the government would choose which organizations receive that money, if any at all. Imagine if there was no tax incentive for non-profit donations. I imagine there would be a lot fewer donations from billionaires. IMO, the tax incentives of the U.S. are helping, whether or not the funds are coming out of good will or not. Tax incentives are not tax evasion.

And in this case, I don't know that OBS is a non-profit, so the donations probably have nothing to do with tax incentives anyway.

Quoting: 14I think you have the wrong idea of the tax incentives for donations in the U.S. The tax system promotes donations of your choosing. This is a power to the people kind of thing.

Last time I checked, Facebook is not "the people". It's a big, very big company. So this is power to some very rich individuals and / or companies, to choose where their money goes because it's something that interests them or gives them a good image in the media or even both.

Quoting: 14The alternative is the government would choose which organizations receive that money, if any at all.

And why would that be bad? Even if I don't believe in the system "as is", the government is supposed to be representative of the people, much more than Facebook in any case.

Quoting: 14And in this case, I don't know that OBS is a non-profit, so the donations probably have nothing to do with tax incentives anyway.

I don't have the faintest idea if OBS is a non-profit, but in the end if Facebook does it, it's because they expect some kind of profit from it. I never used FB's streaming feature so I don't know if it can be related to that. But these kind of companies don't give money just because.


And to be clear: I'm glad for OBS, I would just love that FOSS could be funded in some other way.

Quoting: 14This is a power to the people kind of thing.

This is a power to the people with money kind of thing.
I do get that governments in general, and the US government especially, are often unaccountable to the people overall. But this is also mainly because they are instead accountable to people with money. One mechanism for helping people with money decide who gets what doesn't really make up for another such mechanism.
It is possible to have the best of both worlds IMO. The likes of Kickstarter and Patreon show the way. First, collect the taxes. Then, give everyone power to assign an equal share of the money--what do you want to fund in Gov-starter?

Back on topic, I'm sure that Facebook are here doing some combination of getting a tax break, public relations, and helping arrange for software to do what they need software to do in a way that's cheaper than writing it in-house. But one of the major virtues of open source is that it forces the results of that kind of thing to be probably fairly useful to a relatively broad set of people whether the likes of Facebook want such results or not. So I'm pleased that OBS Studio is the beneficiary of Facebook's cynical self-interested behaviour.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 28 February 2020 at 5:35 pm UTC

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIt is possible to have the best of both worlds IMO. The likes of Kickstarter and Patreon show the way. First, collect the taxes. Then, give everyone power to assign an equal share of the money--what do you want to fund in Gov-starter?

I fear there's unpopular topics (e.g. therapies for some... disorders) such system is unlikely to generate money for, though they are quite helpful.

I hate to be one of those people, but Facebook investing in anything does not spark joy.

Quoting: Rutine

Quoting: 14I think you have the wrong idea of the tax incentives for donations in the U.S. The tax system promotes donations of your choosing. This is a power to the people kind of thing.

Last time I checked, Facebook is not "the people". It's a big, very big company. So this is power to some very rich individuals and / or companies, to choose where their money goes because it's something that interests them or gives them a good image in the media or even both.

Quoting: 14The alternative is the government would choose which organizations receive that money, if any at all.

And why would that be bad? Even if I don't believe in the system "as is", the government is supposed to be representative of the people, much more than Facebook in any case.

Quoting: 14And in this case, I don't know that OBS is a non-profit, so the donations probably have nothing to do with tax incentives anyway.

I don't have the faintest idea if OBS is a non-profit, but in the end if Facebook does it, it's because they expect some kind of profit from it. I never used FB's streaming feature so I don't know if it can be related to that. But these kind of companies don't give money just because.


And to be clear: I'm glad for OBS, I would just love that FOSS could be funded in some other way.

The fact that Facebook gave money to OBS does not take away any of your money to donate somewhere of your choosing.

I'm not going to go deeper into taxes because it's just going to boil down to differences in political views.

If Facebook is using OBS and they are providing monetary support because they'd like some features implemented, I don't see the problem. If the community felt like they were neglected due to greenwashing, they have the ability to fork the project and hope most of the community follows. That is the open-source way.

Quoting: 14The fact that Facebook gave money to OBS does not take away any of your money to donate somewhere of your choosing.

Yeah, after the wealthiest people and companies spent their billions, I'm still free to decide where to put my ten bucks. Cool.

Reminds me of the quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: 14The fact that Facebook gave money to OBS does not take away any of your money to donate somewhere of your choosing.

Yeah, after the wealthiest people and companies spent their billions, I'm still free to decide where to put my ten bucks. Cool.

Reminds me of the quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

I do not understand the point you're making. I mean, I get the point, but it's not applicable. A rich entity donated money somewhere, and that somehow makes it pointless for anyone that's not rich to donate anywhere...? You might as well just stop going to work if you can't earn the same amount of money as the richest corporations in the world with that logic.

So, the OP was Facebook donating money, and that makes you angry. It's sounding to me like you wish you could control Facebook's money yourself. Or, maybe your solution would be that nobody is allowed to earn lots of money or not allowed to donate. What is your ideal here?