Those are not limits of free software. The only way this is even connected to software freedom is that Trump had the freedom to use the software for this purpose. This, however, would have likely been true for most proprietary alternatives he could possibly have used. Proprietary software licenses don't give the user full freedom, but they are still permissive enough for the program itself to be useful, or at least appear to be useful. You could argue that the fact that Trump did what he did is still a consequence of software freedom, and in some way you'd be right, but that isn't a "limit", nor is it accidental. That is the exact intention of software freedom. Free software authors yield control in advance, to the user, so that the user can do things the author disagrees with, without having to ask permission or approval. That isn't a side effect of software freedom, it's the exact core. While I'm personally no fun of Truth Social (although, I have to admit, I'm also not a user, so I can't comment much on it) and I don't have a good opinion of Trump, I still disagree with some of your criticism of Truth Social. You talk a lot about "freedom", but, really, multiple different freedoms exist and one person doesn't have to hold the same stance about them all. For example, one could support freedom of speech, as I do, but also taxation (as I also do) so that the state can operate. Taxation, in a way, decreases certain kinds of economic freedom. You might think I am wrong, but I am not *inconsistent*, having two different opinions on two different things. The fact that somebody supports software freedom says very little about their political stances in general. Free software has supporters that disagree politically on other issues. They probably do tend to be somewhat liberal (or at least not authoritarian) and in favor of freedom of speech as well, but there are plenty of topics, even freedom-related, to disagree about. > The name "Truth Social" suggests that they care about truth and society. No, it only suggests they care about truth, not society. "Social" clearly means "social media", in context and doesn't refer to any other aspect of society. > We know that incorrect information is bad for freedom. We also "know" that censorship is much worse than misinformation. If Truth Social actually did allow all expression equally without discrimination, I would support that. > However, Truth Social members value the freedom to pursue their personal pleasure and comfort above all else. > […] > A critical problem Truth Social faces is that the extreme opinions make many people uncomfortable. You criticize Truth Social because its users seek their own comfort. Then, right after that, you criticize it because it makes many people uncomfortable. Who cares if people feel uncomfortable? Why are the potential users that are made to feel uncomfortable (which apparently is bad) more important than the actual users that are made to feel comfortable (which apparently is also bad)? Maybe the rest is a bigger audience. It probably is. It doesn't mean that pandering to the majority is necessarily the best choice, however. > Advertisers feel the same way. If, besides software freedom, there is one absolutely gigantic issue with social media is that they pander to advertisers to the extent that they do. The idea that, as a society (and, in this, I am including online services, including of course social media) we should pander to the self-interests and feelings of the greedy capitalists that have the economical power to have an effect is rather bizarre to me. Fuck advertisers, fuck whatever they want, fuck whatever makes them feel comfortable. Looking at what advertisers want, of all people, is one of the worst possible ways we could filter what we write and what we read. > As a result the platform is financialy insecure. It is estimated that it loses 1.7 million dollar each month. It started out with 37 million dollars in late 2021 - early 2022. Without additional funds, it won't be able to continue for long. The issue here is ever relying on advertisers and ever being for profit. A truly content-neutral platform, if well studied technically, could be rather efficient and would likely be able to operate as a non-profit (with freedom of speech as a mission). Bending to what the greedy capitalists with enough money to spend in advertising want is a disgrace. > In the above I have shown that free software can be used in a product which spreads falsehood, encourages ignorance and irrationality and endorses greed, selfishness and lack of gratitude. I hope I don't sound rude saying this, but this is very unsurprising. I don't know of anyone who ever remotely suspected that free software could *not* be used in such a product. > This makes me feel that we have much more to do than just call for freedom in software. Yes, there exist more than one issue in the world, and more than one organization dedicated to different issues. There is a free software community, which is about software freedom. There are other communities that are about other things.
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
