Currently wondering what it feels like to work so hard on an open-licensed typeface only to have it co-opted by very terrible and very famous people as part of their core brand identity.
Also posted to Bluesky.
12 replies
Reading this made me think of companies that have done the opposite: branded with a typeface made with a problematic designer.
About 15 years ago I did some work for a company using Gill Sans, and boy was I not ready to learn about the designer.
Wikipedia casually dropping “Germany during the late 1920s” without additional context is *wild*
@zachleat big ooooffffs in the chat for this one.
“Speaking for myself, I was disappointed to see the Trump administration adopt it,” Egstad writes. “Using a freely available and open-source font to promote exclusionary policies is deeply ironic.”
@konnorrogers great find!!
-
@zachleat I’ve been thinking about this too! The irony of it coming from a Portland agency as well.
@andymcmillan we need better licensing models across the board
@zachleat I would definitely consider adding ligatures that turn unquoted MAGA phrases into poop emoji.
@koos ahahaha
@zachleat Hot take (from someone who's been a passionate supporter of open licenses, and thinks they're better than proprietary licenses).
By default, open licenses help the powerful more than they help the powerless. Why? Because they're applied to technology. And technology multiplies potential, it doesn't add it.
To develop technology that's disproportionately advantageous to "the little guy", you need to design that in, not just open license something and hope for the best.