Hello,
I don't know if I understand that correctly, but in the end it's always
people who act.
My understanding is that free software helps me to work in a way that is
not subject to any control. Nobody looks at what my program or I am
doing as a user. But I can still strive for world domination with free
software, make evil plans and so on. The software is not decisive for
that, but that is the moment when I decide which way to go.
--
mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Michael Wehram
https://michaelwehram.de
Am 2023-04-25 23:27, schrieb Davis Remmel via libreplanet-discuss:
On 4/25/23 16:01, Abe Indoria wrote:
I mean, even if I disagree about the whole wealth=evil equivalency,
I'm sorry that you thought I called the ultra-wealthy evil. I believe
their intentions might very well be noble, but when one or a few people
exercise control, that is undemocratic (today, being done mostly
through financial mechanisms), and this is a structure of society that
I feel is important to discuss because I believe society should be
controlled by the public, not the few or ones.
Free software is the best antidote to this control because it is the
only kind of software that legally resists capture by any individual.
It seems when the topic of social control is not discussed, the
situation gets worse. And, by virtue of the wealthy controlling today's
mass media, and especially them controlling proprietary online social
media and their ability to influence other kinds of small media (they
can even influence the fediverse by purchasing bots), some ideas aren't
ever heard, maybe just being drowned out in the noise, especially the
ideas that are critical of the establishment.
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
