Re: Input on anticompetitive characteristic of public code
> http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/16/33 The article only deals with Open Source market dominance not 'Free'. All references to 'free' in that article are about royalty-free software not the 'four freedoms'. Open Source I believe is vulnerable to this kind of threat because the idea is that it give developers freedom to innovate using a royalty free license. OS is positioned much more closely to the capitalist demand for radical innovation and thus is already exposed to capitalist ideas of political and social legitimacy. Free Software is not exclusionary AFAIK I cannot think of any case where proprietary software has been refused entry to a market because of it, but am open to studying examples of that happening if anyone can find examples? > * How can we oppose the argument that publicly financed software released as > Free Software is anticompetitive? In the same way competitive market actors defend vendor lock-ins and rent seeking and all the other market failures, resist market-led policy priorities which have already become over-represented. Real competition after all, is (in some) sense anti-competitive if we are imagining a 'pro-competitive' product produces a perfect market. It's a wrong question that anchors responses in wrong-thinking about markets and about free software. > * What can we bring up on the other hand in favor of publishing as Free > Software from a competitive point of view? (except the usual non-dependencies) Why is this a demand? This sounds like an apology for Open Source, not the basis for promoting free software to me. 'Competition' is a market-led paradigm that deforms software development in favor of proprietorial interests, it's making a vice out of a virtue... ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: Discussion Digest, Vol 186, Issue 5
In the context of this thread I personally cannot see anything that Daniel has said that may be considered as personally insulting. What I see is people choosing to take offence because particular ideas and expressions have lead to increased ambivalence among participants, but that is different. Much of this thread is informed, in good faith and well calibrated I think and is a credit to those involved in topics that people are of course passionate about. Rhetorical mood is perhaps the most dominant form of political discourse online and helps to motivate participation, and thus is a consistent strategy with the need for more grassroots representation at the FSFE I think. The right to take offence at the things people are saying is one thing, but accusations of personal insults I think requires a much higher standard of evidence and in absence of that ought to be discounted. The currency of offence-taking is common in public discourse, and while in many cases it is legitimate, in many others it is used to shame people into silence, a kind of precursor to secretive meetings by 'core groups' and a culture of stealth blocking and censorship... none of which is in the spirit of open democracy. I switched my affiliation away from FSFE because of controversy and contention but because controversy and contention seemed to bemissing, being kept un-observed from view and so moderately heated public discussion threads I believe are signs of a resurgence in vibrant community relations and are just the thing that is needed right now. Sweeping this stuff under the carpet only leads to an accumulation and trip hazards later on. let's be **bold** in our thinking change, and in our talking change? The FSFE is a public-facing institution that appears to me to be run more like a polite, private gentlemens club and whether my view is actually accurate or not, that freely-formed suspicion, or perception of the culture at least needs to change, surely? >>> in your writing, so I am assuming it is serious. This is an incredibly >>> insulting statement to many people within the FSFE. You are supposed to >>> also represent FSFE Supporters like me and others who you insult on a >>> regular basis. I appreciate how seriously you take your responsibility >>> as a representative, but with your current communication style I have to >>> say you do not represent me because I stand for civil communication, not >>> for insults and attacks. >> For me, active representatives asking difficult questions are an >> essential part of a democracy. > I agree with that statement. Please re-read my comment; I did not > complain about your questions. I don't like your insults, especially in > this case when they are also untruthful. You know I made several > suggestions to improve community involvement and influence in the GA, so > I will not stand for your personal attacks. > > You are very much _not_ the last man standing for democracy in the FSFE. > Democracy is not about who can yell the most or who can yell the > loudest. Your current actions are often disruptive and drown out other > people's ideas and voices in the GA. And when you ask questions, you > often fail to do so and follow up in any sort of structured way, and you > draw conclusions from details that often do not represent what the > majority in the GA actually think. Also, the last time you asked for > community feedback in person, you afterwards failed to answer any > questions about comparing your stated goal with the outcome and you > report stayed anecdotal. Please be more constructive; I want to work > with you, not against you. > > Happy hacking! > Florian > > > -- > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:15:41 +0200 > From: Florian Snow > To: discussion@lists.fsfe.org > Subject: Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer > Message-ID: <87tvq4aav6@familysnow.net> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Hi Daniel, > > > Daniel Pocock writes: >> While some people don't care about elections or proper membership, > Disagreement with a specific implementation of an idea does not mean not > caring about that idea. > > >> other people do care about it so much that they stopped contributing > Perhaps I missed that and then I apologize, but did you bring that up to > the GA with specific examples? > > >> The constructive thing to do is get more people involved in the >> discussion about what comes next rather than using a reference to the >> CoC to censor how people discuss it. > A call to order is also a normal part of democracy because it keeps the > discussion civil. No one censured you; we are simply asking you to > refrain from attacks and insults. > > Happy hacking! > Florian > > > -- ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other, non-profits?
> Daniel's article about the use of proprietary software and services
by the FSFE:
> https://danielpocock.com/pmpc-for-fsfe-itself
> ...a long discussion last year, starting here...
> https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-June/011591.html
> ...and ending here:
> https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-October/011934.html
We may be wrong to give awards to organisations who use Free Software to
achieve their objectives.
I say this because I see how beauty pageants, and the general seductions
of seeking 'prestige' tend to make topics like privacy, surveillance and
ultimately, control seem more juvenile than they really are. In any
case, it's hard to out-match the behavior of companies like Google and
Facebook in terms of their huge success in trivializing such things in
my view. For those of us that are doing our best to use Free Software
and improve it, I believe the rewards for knowing we are in control of
the technology are more than sufficient?
What is at stake here I think in the Free Software universe is not about
levels of adoption and pragmatics, since many CMS packages and FS
flavors of linux are already doing pretty well in terms of 'market
share' I think, (if I can put it that way). What I imagine is on the
horizon is humanity having to deal with such challenges as IoT and AI
while attenuating the land-grabbing mentality of the tech. giants and
the extraordinary resources they already have at their disposal to
influence governments and civil society - tax evasion, high-level
'cabals' lobbying for international trade exemptions and so forth.
In terms of the FSFE, I think there are some obvious problems with the
way things are done (or not done perhaps) which I think may be somewhat
related to the relationships between the various actors at GA level,
which I know nothing about and to be frank, cannot really get excited
about because I don't see what I want to see at the FSFE. I have mostly
lost interest in FSFE and instead have decided to support FSF in America
for the time being. I don't agree with everything FSF stands for, but I
do admire it enough to switch my affiliation for now.
Having worked with non-profits since the early nineties I see the same
problems time and time again which are beyond the scope of this email,
but can be generally classified as 'parochialism', getting too bogged
down in personal battles and internal politics and losing the 'big
picture' which I generally attribute to a prevailing images of the
confluence of post-sufficiency (capitalist) philanthropy and liberal
voluntaryism.
I agree it is not only 'right' for the FSFE to set the highest
standards, but it can also be politically useful to be able to
articulate a clear ethos. A 'zero-tolerance' policy is great for PR and
helps to create the necessary differentiation between slippery customers
like 'Open Source'.
However, this stance is often seen as 'anti-business',
'anti-capitalist', 'utopian' and all the rest of it, which is where a
lot of the anxiety is among business-oriented people (industrialists if
you like). For business owners to admit that Free Software has a
potential to circumvent the normative business practices they want,
based on notions of appropriate incentives, private property and a
stable macro-economic is akin to admitting a kind of personal defeat
too, and for many it is (psychologically) too much to bear perhaps?
This is why the public code / public money campaign seems like a good
idea at first, because it aligns an objective of the FSFE ('public
code') with an identifiable social reality 'public money'. The one
downside of this of course is the real tyrants, the ambitious
industrialists and neoliberals just out to exploit for personal
advantage (once again) manage to avoid the heat while publicly funded
organizations are put under more pressure to meet standards that
business leaders don't feel obliged to meet while doing everything they
can to evade.
The problem with seeing FS just as a kind of liberal-minded , ethical
gimmick for a business to enable it to produce a sense of social
conscience, rather than a core ideal for humanity is that it is still
bound to a more contentious idea of 'empowering' people to pursue goals
to improve their lives (which for many people is fine) by putting
capital and labour together to create products that add value (which for
many people, isn't fine). The result is (again!) the accumulation of
private property interests which brings with it problems such as social
injustice, rising inequalities and powers of extractive elites enjoying
monopoly profits.
FS advocates that fail to see how the broader logic of capitalism
succeeds at connecting to even our best, socially motivated intentions
means that half-heated solutions like 'Open Source' can still create
outcomes that threaten to harm public and merit goods by meeting in
secret to develop plans that do not
Re: Mozilla first, now FSFE?
The FSFE / FB thing is a classic case of personal choice elevated to moral imperative. Use FB/Don't use FB it's not relevant. If folk sense moral hazard from advocating Free Software on a non-free platform then that's their choice. The reverse is true, if an individual doesn't sense any moral hazard then that's a personal choice. Our personal choices are not relevant to advocating FS at the scale of social systems / polity. It's time we stopped the navel gazing and just do what we have to do to get Free Software a fair hearing. Contribute, develop, lecture, investigate and resist by all means but stop arguing with each other about whether we ought to use FB, we need to realize that conversation is peripheral AND trivial to the main work which is to promote Free Software in the best way we think. Your FS advocate on FB is not your enemy, the FS advocate who does not use FB is not your enemy. FB is not the enemy. Proprietory software is not an enemy, we are not at war. Change the vocabulary. Change the conversation. Talk about diaspora or mastodon or Quitter or something - they need all the coverage they can get. FB doesn't need our attention... it is perfectly capable of imploding all by itself. Let's move on. Please. Let's move on. FFS. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: [GA] who is a member?
> I am sorry. This is one sentence? Yes. Well observed. If you also notice it was a response to Florian's invitation to 'elaborat[e] a little bit about your experience?'. The request was a bit vague but I wrote in good faith about my experience as requested. This included some irritation which I conveyed in the way you observed. I was writing from that point of view, a sense of irritation with how I think the FSFE could do better, not from the perspective of trying to get a prize for literature. If I hadn't been asked about 'my experience' I would not have said any more about it since I find personal experience at times an unreliable indicator of what perhaps needs to be done next - and yet sometimes it's all we have - so I accepted the challenge. Still on the subject of my personal experience then - it feels odd to be asked to offer to help and then be criticized for trying to help! If I had been asked to write an academic essay or a more reflective opinion piece using simple English or Esperanto then I may have done so too, but feeling judged on tone and grammar alone when the context is all about me being asked to offer my personal experience in a mailing list is a bit excessive too, don't you think? ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
[GA] who is a member?
Hi Florian, >> I have left the FSFE because (among other things) there appears to be >> multiple levels of practical engagement with policy (which is fine) but it >> is based on a rather obscure set of policies concerning what membership >> means (which is not fine). > I am trying to understand better what exactly you mean here; would you mind > elaborating a little bit about your experience? Broadly, I would describe my experience in one way: initial enthusiasm about the FSFE transforming into ambivalence. On one hand I am very energized by the work of the FSFE in keeping FS principles relevant to society, communities of developers and end users. On the other hand I am depressed and anxious about the specific features of the organization that frustrate that work through various contradictions at the level of organizational design which Daniel and a few others highlight in this thread and elsewhere so I won't repeat them here. The danger I think is an organization like the FSFE is instrumental (though it's effectiveness is difficult to measure) in attenuating the most harmful effects of privately oriented institutional control over software development, but it is not immune to the potential to become 'weaponized' by well-meaning individuals, niches and other groups who themselves who are given far more control or influence over the organization than others in various ways. This style of leadership although has benefits for some, it is generally I think problematic for society, communities of developers and end users - the objects the FSFE is claiming to support. This is why I have chosen to cancel my financial support for the time being, until such time that a clearer picture emerges from the FSFE about it's policy priorities and future activities. What is required is a clear set of policy priorities with robust evidence of support for them from the entire membership (and how 'membership' is to be construed seems to be unsettled too). There are many ways to do that from elections, polls, forums, working groups and all the rest of it but if either one is missing - 1) clear policy and 2) evidence of freely conferred deference to them from members (and it seems both appear to be weak in some instances) then no good will result and the FSFE will be on course for an arbitrary accumulation of capital causing all the overdetermined social problems and moral hazards that unaccountable accumulations of capital I think have proved universally to facilitate both in software development and anywhere where technical knowledge is distributed through networks framed by the monocultural havoc wrought by capital rather than the sympathetic wonder of diverse human collectives. / m ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: [GA] who is a member?
> Today we had a poster near our FOSDEM booth saying "Join us at the Funky > Monkey", and indeed a nice bunch of people met in that pub. I didn't have the > impression that any of them felt having become a formal member of the legal > association by following the invitation to join. Small sample bias? The thing to do would be to try to collect data on whether or not the membership more broadly understand their position as 'member'? I have left the FSFE because (among other things) there appears to be multiple levels of practical engagement with policy (which is fine) but it is based on a rather obscure set of policies concerning what membership means (which is not fine). If words matter at all to us, (and they do to me) it seems timely to think about how the concepts of fellowship/membership/sponsorship are being transmitted, since new engagements on the level of governance will be crucial to the effectiveness of the organization. This would help to avoid nasty surprises for everyone later down the line when they find out (like I have) that the words the FSFE like to use don't match my expectations when I do get the time to delve into the internal politics of the organization. / mat ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with plugins?
Hi Florian, > [...] people have the right to give up their freedoms, but I don't know why they would from a theoretical perspective. Well, with the obvious possibility of again sounding a bit like a lecturer with a hangover who has stumbled into the wrong theatre - I have to say there are many theoretical perspectives available in terms of accounting for / interrogating the human person. His makes it hard for me to usefully grasp your perplexity. I think the best domains capable of articulating much of this are social/political science and moral philosophy but anthropology, psychology, biology and a few others I have failed to bring to mind here may also have a bearing My comment about ideas of freedom having within them the seed of a paradox - definitively the right to refuse the terms of freedom as represented I think is slightly socratic/analytic in tone (which many people still have a fondness for I think?). If I have you right, I think you are suggesting that quibbling with end users about the quality of their 'choice' (ahem) to say, use facebook over other free alternatives would provide good evidence that the 'logic' that makes the paradox visible can also be dismissed as 'impractical' and 'misguided' (which it might be) - so either would prove you right. The trouble is that the motivations (impractical or misguided as they might be in your view) for human persons to refuse their rights then there are again, many situations where this might work seems to me to rather more counter the rationale based on the assumption of perfect information symmetry that is confounding you and others. The politics of the architecture of choice is interesting because often what appear as choices are not choices at all in that decisions are made due to the ambush of our cognitive apparatus by affective states, also manipulation by dominant actors and so on and so forth, (behavioural insights - 'nudges' etc.) but even if we ignore all of that (and there are of course many reasons why we ought not to since these factors perhaps account for the majority of what you might see as sub-optimal choices) we are still left looking at an array of what could be described as enlightened choices for a human person when it comes to abstaining from the ideal of freedom. There are many cases where individuals have sacrificed themselves for the sake of another, or a cause and although I understand you are not in favour of such things, the power of the consensus on individual sacrifice, both religious (Jesus on the cross, jihad etc.) and secular (civil war, world wars) is perhaps ignored in this narrative of the ideal of a rational human person, since it is connected (again rightly or wrongly) with strongly motivating feelings like love, fear, power (dominance), excitement and so forth. > I was talking about how someone might decide for themselves that they want to use proprietary software X, but they can decide differently at any later point. Well, I've lost the context for this comment but taking as it is, and depending on what use you had in mind, I don't see only one direction of travel here, I see only countercurrents where people may use proprietary and/or free software combined, interchangeably and alternately and it's the job of organizations like the FSFE to make the benefits clear, which sometimes they do really well, and sometimes that message gets lost in the mixed imperatives of being an employee of the FSFE, an assembly members, perhaps a small business owner working on our own account and an FSFE member which I think Daniel is doing well to point out and possibly seek to change >> Proprietary software has to happen, because that's the way international copyright law is configured, > Do you mean "has to happen" in the sense of "it is inevitable" or do you mean it ought to happen? Both. I don't see the moral gap at all. The challenge for us all I think is to lobby for policy changes to ensure large populations generally get what they need from Free Software, by enforcing policy and cultural change in those institutions, rather than putting too much effort into manipulating (or perhaps 'massaging' is better?) technologically naive end-users and attempting to block them with plugins and so forth. That is a totalitarian impulse in my view and ought to be curtailed - even if you want to give them that 'choice' (which may act more like a 'belief' perhaps?) Keeping on message for me is about highlighting the severe threat Facebook is to individual security and privacy and to argue for change at the company through political engagement with governments and INGO's, I don't buy the privatization of responsibility here, it is our institutions that need to change here and individuals ought to be able to make their choices as freely as is the case now - but using more FS when they are living their lives. > The idea was to write a plugin that people can voluntarily install and then it would warn them of potentially
Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?
On 18/01/18 13:06, Stephane Ascoet wrote: > These are two of the main differences between libre software > advocacies(Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond for the first, RMS for the > second) and I think it would be hardly solved now and here.. I think the Torvalds / RMS split is an example of this internal inconsistency playing out, yes. I suspect though that each person is intelligent enough to see it as an internal contradiction within the FS movement that cannot be resolved dogmatically by either coming down on one side or the other - but ought to be left open for individual activists to work through in their own lives without reference to either luminary. It seems to me there is not a black and white moral fence that we need to jump over to acheive a fairer society but a moral and functional gradient available, and that ought to be left to individual activists to work out for themselves what is right for them in the conditions they are most concerned about. For a debian developer, having software that secretly connects to proprietary surveillance / telemetrics would I think be totally unacceptable, but for a 'free', progressive web app games developer, the use of the FB API just for login for example to boost adoption may be acceptable for them, and both ought to be able to identify fully with the FS movement in an egalitarian way. The point being that the role of the FS activist needs more room to maneuver than is often admitted in forums, and apologists for modest use of proprietary software perhaps ought not to have to contend with the ridicule and moral crusading that comes with more zealous standards in pursuit of an imagined utopia of total proprietary software annihilation when a more modest goal would perhaps be better for computer users, developers and society more generally? The idea of 'good' and 'bad' here then is problematic because it is a moral judgment being made about software when we know free software can be used to accelerate terrifying consequences and also the reverse is also true - in the case where a discussion about the benefits of free software could easily take place on a proprietary platform like Facebook for example. The fundamentalist complaint then is about deflating the moral categories of a liberal lifeworld, and turning the critique on those that would use the rhetoric of software freedom to control and manipulate computer users in that way, which is possibly as 'unhelpful' (or if you like - 'reprehensible') as the 'evil' of Facebook and the likes? If you have ever wondered why people are suspicious of the Free Software message then this would be by wager, that the FS movement hasn't yet reconciled its own internal contradictions on the issue of what software freedom includes (in that it cannot exclude proprietary software on moral grounds, but only through technical measures such as some versions of copyleft) but until it does, not many will want to listen to the messages Torvalds or RMS would prefer they hear? ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?
> I don't find this argument very strong at all. I agree that is is not axiomatic under all conditions, and is only salient in restricted circumstances - for example when FS adviocates attempt to manipulate computer users towards software they believe is better (ie/ free software) or prevent people connecting to proprietary software (eg. like the sort of javascript etc. on Facebook). My complaint was about the obvious problem of FS advocates seeking to manipulate computer users, albeit in the name of freedom through the use of plugins etc. The comparison you make I believe is 100% apt in terms of the right for a human person to sell themselves into slavery if they wish, yes. I think there is an element of this in many work and life contexts - at least in terms of employment contracts and in the social contract where we agree to follow the laws of the state even if we do not agree with them on the grounds that if we don't, we may well be punished. Where you miss the point I think is that I am not suggesting that people should have the right to deny others rights and freedoms, but rather in pursuing the just cause of software freedom, some activists go to far and inflate this well-intentioned and important work into manipulation of computer users, which is to deny the rights and freedoms of others to connect to Facebook for example. This is evident through the sorts of technologies discussed in this thread, in preventing people from connecting to proprietary software in an automated fashion. I say this because I feel strongly if FS advocates give up the moral issue of computer user freedom and software developer freedom in their advocacy, then that is a self-defeating activity. In contrast to your view, I believe that unless the FS movement treats rights and freedoms as something that MUST be negotiated individually, computer user freedom and free software will be unobtainable for the the individuals who are being manipulated into using software (free or otherwise) that isn't respecting their freedoms as much as is claimed. I'm not a staunch individualist, because I believe the rights of the human person in some circumstances must fold into what is best for society, especially in areas of public health and education and so forth, and the options of the individual to opt out of freedom is a fundamental prerequisite for both liberal and not-so-liberal education programs everywhere. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?
> [...] > help people avoid visiting or linking to things like Facebook, Meetup, > Twitter and Doodle? > [...] > As well as blocking, does it give the user any encouragement to use alternatives? > is there a way a plugin could reward people for doing the right thing? > Rewards are more effective at bringing about change than criticism. The anxiety and zeal around the adoption (or failure to adopt Free software) among some programmers in the FS movement is I think a problem worthy of a discussion itself since it seems to resemble the problems with over-protective parenting. In Robin Norwood's 'Women Who Love Too Much' (1985) we see: 'In Praising and encouraging are very close to pushing, and when you do that you are trying again to take control of his life. Think about why you are lauding something he’s done. Is it to help raise his self-esteem? That's manipulation. Is it so he will continue whatever behavior you're praising? That's manipulation. Is it so that he'll know how proud you are of him? That can be burden for him to carry. Let him develop his own pride from his own accomplishments.' There is, in short a similar potential for culture problems in the FS movement which is about manipulation, control and influence over the lives of computer users. My complaint then, is what I would describe as the 'FUNDAMENTALISTS COMPLAINT' as in MOZERT V. HAWKINS. Discussions about software freedom don't always result in freedom for the user in the same way that the local school board in Hawkins County, Tennessee in this case ended up being charged with denigrating a families religious views. This type of complaint in the context of software is that an individuals or corporate's right to develop proprietary software is being 'drowned out' or 'silenced' by all this talk of software freedom. The argument is advanced by showing how exposure to free software either by blocking non-free, not providing non-free alternatives actually goes against the free exercise of computers users freedom to use proprietary software through denigrating it either from technical, moral, political, social, economic or philosophical perspectives. It seems timely to issue a reminder that all computer users must be allowed to opt out of Free Software too, to avoid the charge of contradiction or hypocrisy? Making Free Software mandatory for all and to victimize users who refuse to participate in Free Software is not only contradictory but will only marginalize users we are trying to educate. Facebook users are not seeking to impose their ideas on the FS movement and generally do not have a problem with FS in principle or in practice. These objections are at the heart of the Free Software movement and it's important to keep in mind that Free Software will only grow if computer users are exposed to it without being asked to give up proprietary software entirely. It's astonishing that the possibility of the ideal predicated on the complete annihilation of proprietary software is so prevalent and is misinforming so many FS activists. It seems to me we should pay attention to the gains we have already made and concentrate on those, and worry less about facebook users and the like and trying to 'convert' them to a particularly disagreeable form of software freedom which is more about computer user manipulation than computer user freedom? ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: psychotic disorders of (few) web market operators and, privacy less valued than pizza
Hi, > I just discovered this study from "Freedom to tinker" [1] that clearly shows clinic evidence of psychotic disorders by few web market operators [...] I think the article referenced may be this: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2017/11/15/no-boundaries-exfiltration-of-personal-data-by-session-replay-scripts/ ...and although there are references made to individual health data in the article, I can't see any evidence that would suggest any 'clinical evidence of psychotic disorders', not least because I would suggest 'web market operators' are not the kinds of entities that are capable of having 'minds' from any clinical perspective that I am aware of. Legal personality, yes, but clinical personalities, i think: "no". > I do not think it's appropriate to speculate on the mental health of people you politically disagree with. Well, personal tastes, moral judgments and potential for expensive litigation aside, from a professional and methodological perspective, if we are at all interested in producing useful explanations about the behavior of market actors, I think the reasons available for bad behavior are already overdetermined by the characteristics of markets more generally, and the ethical limitations of market-led policies and incentives I hope do not need to be rehearsed in a forum connected to discussing (among other things) the benefits of free software? / mat ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Free software and open source philosophies differ,, sometimes with radically different outcomes
Hello Bruno :-) > you must acknowledge that the 98% does not really know what this is about, dont' you think? Well, I am not sure if I mean to ignore it Bruno. It's just that there has been some push back in other areas too which I believe are also important issues to discuss openly. I think what I would say is that if the 2% are not clear about the important differences between the two things, which includes the lexemes, the ideas, the concepts, the methodologies, the cultures and the outcomes, as two distinct packages if you like, then the chances of influencing the 98% discussion in my view look more remote, not as some may see it perhaps, as more likely. The correct intervention here I think is education, and not acquiescing to the demands of business managers that want to have all the benefits of (say) a vibrant development community but do not feel obliged to uphold users freedom. I say this because to me this is an exemplary case of difference between Open Source and Free Software development. To do that, we simply have to talk about free software, if it fits the criteria, and open source if it fits different criteria, and NOT mix the two things up. It serves neither the 2% nor the 98% to talk in ways that are confusing and incapable of supporting the fundamental differences between the two things, in much a similar way that you would expect that if I say to you I work in a coffee shop, you could reliably relay that information to your friends accurately. It does no one any good if I say I work in a coffee shop if I actually work in a factory, because transmitting unreliable information I think generally in information science isn't the way we get useful things done, is it? ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Free software and open source philosophies differ,, sometimes with radically different outcomes
> People that promote Free Software know about what that means, people > that promote Open Source may or may not, so whereas a Free Software > advocate is obviously committed to (at the very least) ideas of > communitarian living, an Open Source advocate is likely to be either 1) > Confused; 2) Pro-business - which at the very least means pro-capitalism > and centrist or right of center on the political spectrum; 3) Both > confused and pro-business I'd like to qualify here that I mean to say 'confused about the differences between open source and free software' (it's not a moral judgment) - see my response to Jonas. > You are projecting your own political beliefs onto everyone in the Free Software movement. Not quite, what I am doing is suggesting that a persons political beliefs can be broadly predicted using some basic knowledge of Open Source and Free Software principles and established social and political theory. You are of course at liberty to reject those theories and the basis for them if you think they are unreliable. > My preferred term is Free Software because I believe individual freedom to be the highest political goal or utility and Free Software safeguards every individual's freedom and control over their devices. Fine. I understand that, but the point is about the wider, social implications of each I think, in that Open Source and Free Software are just as much cultural realities as they might be personal commitments or 'psychologies'. I say this because the technologies don't only exist as ideas, they are working communities or 'paradigms' that shape (or deform) the working lives of millions of human persons. I would say what you have articulated here seems to strengthen the point about the confusion (meaning 'mixed up' or 'combinatorial' or 'blend') between communitarian vs. pro-business imperatives, which is itself an outcome of a particularly popular political commitment some political scientists refer to as 'neoliberalism'. I say this because you seem to have managed to transmit a communitarian ethic wrapped in what I would say shows signs of a libertarian vocabulary, a kind of 'compassionate capitalism' perhaps. If you look at what you said, you used the words 'everyone in the Free Software movement' and 'every individual's freedom and control over their devices', and you volunteerd that without coercion or inducement. This indicates to me a deep social awareness that characterizes the communitarian mindset not the mindset of a strict libertarian. If you were really just in it for yourself, unapologetically and without doubts, you would I think have elected to use the words 'me' and 'my freedom and control over my devices'. Even though you claim no 'communitarian leanings', you recognize 'cooperating in communities is a valid exercise of any individual's freedom of association'. So, although I can accept that you are interested in respecting the rights of the individual, you have elected to do so through a communitarian impulse, which is an impulse not only to work with others (as corporations also enable that) but in this context it appear to be in excess of narrow, private concerns, in that here, you are not thinking of your employer or shareholders of a company or your status within an advantage seeking company when you say these things, you seem to be motivated by a concern for 'everyone', which of course is something that private corporations only invoke at the level of marketing, while their systems are oriented toward protecting private property rights. I am totally on board with the FS agenda not preventing anyone from also being pro-business on the grounds of individual self-determination either, but all I would say is that if we wish to talk about 'cooperating with communities' and other peoples rights and freedoms, as you want to do, it's hard (but not impossible) to disclaim communitarian motivations, in much the same way it's hard (but not impossible) to talk about being pro-business without wanting also to talk about private property, profit and so forth. > The Free Software definition says nothing about the way Free Software should be developed. Neither have I. > The definition is not pro-communitarian or anti-business, and hence any movement based on promoting the definition is not pro-communitarian or anti-business either or it has already failed. This thread is about 'Free software and open source philosophies differ,, sometimes with radically different outcomes'. I have been posting on that topic, not about the FS definition which doesn't get us any closer to resolving the problem as I, and many FS advocates see it, which is about the problematic of using the terms 'open source' and 'free' interchangeably - as if they are synonyms when they are really about completely different things which I won't go over here because FS advocates will know what those differences are I am sure. Simply, the term Free Software ought not be used for Open
Re: Free software and open source philosophies differ, sometimes with radically different outcomes
Hi, > whether someone talks about Free Software or Open Source is not a good indicator of where on this political spectrum they fall. Well, a person can 'talk about' socialism and about 'the right'from any perspective, for sure. But what a person chooses for themselves I think does tend to regulate the WAY they talk about those things, and WHAT they say about them too. A centrist position, is not the same as a neutral position. It's possible to hold socialist or right-wing positions without insisting people think the same way. Counterwise, it's possible to hold out a centrist position in a rhetorical way, perhaps to try and convince other people, or other people within the FSFE ought to think the same way. The problem with silencing the debate on the demarcation between Open Source and Free/Libre is that it camouflages what can be a non-neutral centrist politics which tends to invite corporate involvement that may not be, strictly speaking coterminous with thinking in Free Software circles. The difference between incentives to produce either Open Source or Free/Libre ought to be enough to remind us that the cultures informing those ideas are very different, as perhaps are the outcomes in many cases. The FSFE ought I think to be unequivocally on the side of Free Software, and I think it is. The possible weakening of this is when we start to see Open Source as being part of the same movement, which it might be or it may not be. The point is, it is possible to easily identify Free Software because it will have certain features that other development paradigms don't offer. The problem with 'Open Source' is that is may also be Free, but it may also be proprietary, and that should tell us all we need to know about the problems with thinking Open Source is in the same family as Free/Libre. In a similar way, a cuckoo is a bird, just like a warbler - but it seems to me that Open Source is very much like the cuckoo in the warblers nest of free software, it seems to benefit from all the positive benefits from being part of a happy family, but it can outgrow it's siblings and exhaust the parents and in any case, it's a very different bird when it hatches? People that promote Free Software know about what that means, people that promote Open Source may or may not, so whereas a Free Software advocate is obviously committed to (at the very least) ideas of communitarian living, an Open Source advocate is likely to be either 1) Confused; 2) Pro-business - which at the very least means pro-capitalism and centrist or right of center on the political spectrum; 3) Both confused and pro-business This much at least I think we can say, so as a rule of thumb the critique of political allegiances between the two seems useful, at least on a broad/macro scale of social analysis. / mat ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Free software and open source philosophies differ sometimes with radically different outcomes
hi, An opinion that appeals to center/moderate politics by combining two distinct yet related concepts is not the moderate or reasonable position it is sometimes mistaken for. This is a journey into mysterious niches of political activism where FS involvement is implicated in a global, market economy, where corporate interests are often kept secret, and standards design and development like DRM are turning towards four characteristic features of market-led policy: Groups, not isolated individuals; Aims, not ones that would benefit society as a whole; Orchestrated acts, not a series of spontaneous and haphazard ones; and Secret planning, not public discussion___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Free software and open source philosophies differ sometimes with radically different outcomes
Hi, A good reason to stay out of discussions would be if we were to consider that we have nothing to add that could improve them. A bad reason would be because the subject matter strains the limits of subjective human incredulity. I don't think that J.B. Nicholson's argument rests on whether RMS said something or not. The position is capable of being interrogated in isolation, but it doesn't do the position any harm in quoting from a notable source on the philosophy of Free Software that appears to support it too. In short, J.B. Nicholson's argument doesn't succeed or fail on whether we believe RMS is a reliable source on some other subject matter. I hope that much is obvious. Open source can be analogized as being 'right wing', and free software as 'left wing' if we accept the established nomenclature of left/right politics with Marxism on the left and capitalism of the right. We also need to be comfortable with the idea that a marxist critique of software tends to emphasize 'freedom' and capitalist discourse tends to emphasize 'development'. Again while we may not wish to commit to these fairly established and broad analogies, if we do, then it all works fine. I am not sure I understand the demarcation between 'practical benefits' (open source) and 'ethical underpinnings' (free software) when it is being articulated by an idea that 'without the practical benefits, the ethical underpinnings don’t exist either'. Unless you are a utilitarian, or pragmatic humanist, this idea would sound wrong. The idea that if our ethics are 'impractical' they don't exist wouldn't fit the ontology of many world views. I am not sure it is possible to realistically discuss nomenclature in isolation from culture either. I think the Open Source movement has quite a few features that differ from the FS movement, for example connections to well-resourced, privately owned stock companies as compared to connections to civic or social organiszations. FLOSS is fine for presentations to a largely unsophisticated image many audiences have of software design but it fails to fully represent the important differences in motivations between developing free software and open source software. For a more sophisticated audience, FLOSS as a descriptor obviously doesn't work because Open Source and Free designate very different design goals and therefore, different outcomes. / mat ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
[UK] Information about the think tank Doteveryone
I presume they have to be 'supportive' in some way - which could mean a donation or something else - like a commitment to promoting FS I would assume - but I don't know DOTEVERYONE is a trading name of GO ON UK LTD. The newly incorporated DOTEVERYONE is now a dissolved company. The older company, GO ON UK is a registered Charity, two of their websites (digitalskills.com and go-on.co.uk) weren't responding when I looked today and their latest accounts highlight two risks about 'organizational capacity' and 'financial stability' which again, because I don't know the conditions of being added, don't know if that's relevant here. It's certainly interesting to learn that the bulk of the money (approx. 1.2M a year) has been pledged by companies not known for their sympathy towards free software AFAIK including E ON (Energy), EE (Telecomms), Lloyds Bank, Sage (software) and Talk Talk (telecomms). Their accounts don't mention FS anywhere as far as I can see... they don't seem to know much about FS and don't talk of it's importance in any of their materials... which is not to say they wouldn't if they were educated since they do seem well intentioned, fairly well resourced and well connected. The bulk of the expenses seems to go on wages, consultants, web costs and other things which doesn't impress me much though. I have worked in UK third sector for 15 years and the variability in quality in UK charities is hard to overestimate and the regulator is seen as being quite weak and ineffective. Any UK registered charity would fit the broader category description of 'NGO'. What a 'true' NGO 'like the other organisations on our list' means I am not sure. SUMMARY IMO: I don't know the terms /conditions of entry to the list so can't make a judgment. The company are having quite a few teething problems... which I think is because it's rather unfocused aims and objectives and (ironically) for an organization promoting digital competence - it doesn't seem to have demonstrated much of that so far... e.g. it has 'frozen' some of it's operations because it's uncertain about the 'viability of the platform'. They do not seem to be oriented towards FS so far, but you may still want to add them for other reasons... e.g. FSFE might be able to influence them into talking more about FS in their events? / mat ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: FSFE in Outreachy?
I agree with Carmen that extended conversations on such complex topics as discrimination is rarely constructive. However, I would like to point out a few gaps in the thread that may be of interest. Firstly, it is I think important to maintain a distinction between the broad, cognitive aspect of discrimination, which is ethically neutral (for example our ability to discriminate between a range of stimuli such as colours, smells and sounds) through to our ability to discriminate on moral grounds, such as whether an individual may be responsible for anti-social behavior on grounds of intention or by accident. We make many such discriminating judgments everyday, including making a distinction between groups of people, for example if they represent a threat or a friendship group. So, it seems naive to suggest that all discrimination is reprehensible or sub-optimal in these conditions. Identifying disadvantage I believe is something that is also critical to feeling empathy, since we would be unable to respond to a wounded animal for example if we were not able to tell the difference between an injured creature and a creature that just happens to have motility functions we do not have, such as a fish that uses a tail to propel itself efficiently through water. Treating animals and people differently then seems to be an indicator of high level sentient functioning, since it prefigures nurturing, appropriate threat responses, efficient networking and much else besides I would imagine. Now that is out of the way we can turn our attention to the pejorative sense of the word discrimination, which is almost always synonymous with violence, disparity and harms of one sort or another that can be avoided if (as Carmen says) they could be avoided in some way. The suggestion that the broad, general meaning of discrimination as cognitive predisposition is as 'wrong' as the narrow meaning of harming another creature or human being based on self-centered prejudice masks the two different meanings and so the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right' isn't a helpful metaphor here. To use Orwell again: '/discrimination means that we ignore the fact that we live in a world //where not all people have the same opportunities and that people of //certain gender or color are privileged' /is not meant to define discrimination only in gender or racial terms. Orwell here is providing two exemplary cases, race and gender as being among the most ubiquitous traits where people are making distinctions that don't relate to the issue at hand (eg. a persons ability to write quality software) which we know depends on other things such as using a good quality copyleft license ;-))/ /Also, finding exceptions to the general rule that white, male interests are generally over represented in all the most influential and powerful places around the world does not destroy Orwell's point which is pointing out that these named power asymmetries are so common, collectivist discrimination would seem to deliver an outcome where more disadvantaged people (howsoever this is assessed) would undeniably solve the problem of lack of representation of disadvantage people so again, this is not at all contradictory but a direct intervention to solve an identified problem of lack of representation in whatever group or organization we are assessing. Finally, we come to what i think is the main problem, which is how do we identify the (so called) 'disadvantaged' or 'minority' interests? This is where Carmen's view is important, because to suggest a person of colour or a woman is disadvantaged to an extent that they ought to be given special privileges over white men in every job interview is not where we want to be. I agree also that the concept of equality is just as much a means as it is an end, so how we get to a state of equality has to be equal also if only to avoid the critical self-defeat as Carmen is keen to point out. Where people tend to disagree is largely contingent on many factors which means it's rarely possible to be 'wholly against this type of discrimination' without taking into account the circumstances in each case, for example what the aims or goals of a particular policy are trying to achieve. I would take issue with the view that the LGBT community approached their struggle for equality with judicious deployment of characters/people in popular media. I think a lot of LGBT rights activists would argue that their cause has been hard won, with many set backs and not least with unrecognized work from lawyers, business people, educators and professionals doing what they can to make the lives of LGBT folk better. All of this of course necessitated active discrimination since playwrights, TV producers, directors, financers, lawyers and many others would have deliberately written such characters into their movies, advertisements and so forth to give the LGBT community a voice where there was previously only bigotry and ignorance. I would
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
> Well, I wasn't arguing that persuading people to leave Facebook would be a gain for Free Software. This was something you stated, perhaps speculating on how some people might think: that in this zero-sum game, people leaving Facebook will have to choose something else to fill the void, and if you keep persuading them, eventually they will find Free Software. I just wanted to point out that you can stop using Facebook and choose*nothing* instead. I agree but my statement assumed that lots of people want to participate in social media of some sort, (the evidence is fairly emphatic) so 'choosing something else' would be their choice too. Given there is so much to worry about with FB, making 'privacy' more personal might be a strategy, as was the case with the anti-CFC campaign which only got going when the harms of skin cancer were highlighted due to ozone depletion. Before that the story of climate change didn't make people change their fridges. If a similar story could be worked up about FB I think more people would take notice because in an age of CCTV no one is really feeling the anti-surveillance ticket are they? > Of course it is about money and control. Those wanting both of these things > got their success. oh - okay... I see what you mean. > [...] it is all very well for the FSFE (or a campaign, or supporters) telling people on Facebook that there are alternatives, maybe mentioning negative things about Facebook or maybe not, but if all those people who are supposedly seeing this message then go and investigate the Free Software alternatives and don't get a coherent picture of what they might be using instead, then the exercise will end up being a waste of everyone's time. Well I am not sure that FS ought to be billed as an 'alternative' anymore than not spying on someone is an 'alternative' to spying on them? ...we underestimate the amount of affective and cognitive labour that is required to make the change to FS I think by referring to 'alternatives'. Most people that are locked into Apple, MS, Google and FB and all the rest are not looking for an 'alternative', they are looking for whatever they think is best for them, so how do we get them there? The trouble is we don't, it will be their social network that gets them there so FSFE is more of a 'key influencer' for people in the industry and public admin and health and education at a fairly high level I think and less of an enabler of personal end users I think? / m > P.S. I noticed that you had a vacation message which was being sent to people > posting to the list. Maybe that was causing you to be moderated, but it might > be a good idea to adjust these notifications in future. I am reconfiguring my email in the next few days :-) ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
On 21/08/17 12:51, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > I think you mean "private software" which is only used by yorself, and > not shared to anyone, not even co-workers. Once you share it at least > with someone, it ought to be free/libre because it's no longer > "private". My understanding of 'private' is not so much 'secret' as you have expressed here - but more like: 'subject to private property rights' which are distributed/published, *privately*. If you are suggesting that I ought to be legally and morally obliged to share all the software I produce under a FS license then that version of freedom isn't the version I would fight for. Freedom without autonomy is totalitarianism. with respect. / m ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
I think that's an understandable reaction in the circumstances. best wishes. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
> I completely disagree.
Okay. That sounds emphatic. I don't want to cut in on how you feel Bastien but
simply to point out the confusing motivations at play here.
> Knowing that FSFE is using Facebook provokes two reactions in me: one is my
> "gut feeling" ("guys??"), another one is the one I’ve already presented
> ("FSFE should play a role model").
Okay. The logical conclusion to those reactions are a) not strictly logical b)
Contingent on agreeing what that role model ought to be (either to use FB to
further it's aims or not)
You may think the Dalia Lama is a role model on World Peace, but it hardly
qualifies him as a role model expert for encrypting an email client - and my
point is the reverse is also true... the FSFE have a lot to contribute to
society and provide they do it within the law and don't set out to harm anyone,
it should get on with it in whatever way it thinks is the most efficient?
> Saying that "politics is not logical at all" does not make sense to me.
Yes, that's the point I am making too.
> And discarding a logical argument because I *also* presented my gut feeling
> does not make sense either.
Yes, and that's because you haven't presented a logical argument, you have
presented a politics of affect, which I think is the way to go too.
It is precisely because you have a gut reaction to FSFE being on FB that is
interesting - that is why this is a legitimate topic of discussion, because
people are reacting emotionally to an issue that is not at all logical, but an
emotional one. The reason why it is emotional is because peoples lives are
involved, much less is it about machine learning.
> I urge everyone to simply acknowledge the fact that it is difficult not to be
> on Facebook and, consequently, anyone can very much be tempted to craft
> justifications on why an organization like FSFE
should be on FB. But I still consider all these justifications to be wrong.
You are demanding people participate based on your feelings about Facebook.
Many people will agree with you, and that's fine but it's not a 'fact' in the
same way a pebble on a beach exists whether we 'like' it or not. Your argument
is subjective (again this is okay) but recognizing the subjective nature of
your argument is important to both your point and mine.
If we accept that people are responding to the issue in an emotional rather
than an objective mode (and there is plenty of evidence of this in this
discussion) then that strongly suggests to me the FSFE needs to make an
emotional call for people to change, rational choice theory when it comes to
software was abandoned I think in the seventies?
If there was a natural science model for why people use FB I would love to have
it, but the only appropriate methodology in social science and political
science seems to be one of 'story telling' to me, and we ignore that reality at
our own cost I think.
My view is that folk on FB clearly are not calculating according to rational
criteria, because they are sharing way too much and demanding very little from
their captors. Their "feel for the game" is that FB is good for them but that
is based on what FB are telling them and all their friends - and the FSFE I
would say needs to be part of those conversations people are having about
privacy and data protection where people can hear us.
So, again we seem to agree on this tactic of using emotion to make our points
effectively is okay?
All that's left then is to consider if an emotional plea for people to switch
to FS can be articulated on FB.
We both think it can, but the point you want to make is that it is not
consistent in FS use - again I agree - but I would rather tweet someone about
the harms of twitter than not tweet them at all - perhaps this is where we
disagree? You think it is better for people to find out about FS in a FS
environment - which I happen to think is idealistic and not practical (and
there are plenty of reasons to reject pragmatics of course).
I also agree that a pragmatic approach can be confusing for people, but here I
think it also misses where FS is at right now. Sometimes activists end up
having to continue to argue for change in sub-optimal settings because society
doesn't like what they say. This doesn't mean the activists are supporting
refugee camps or locking up dissenting voices in prisons - far from it.
Mandela was not a fan of the South African judicial system or Robben Island,
but he was a trained lawyer and I am sure FS advocates are not fans of FB (I'm
not) but sometimes we have to be prepared to use the system to bring attention
to the harms the system is producing, it's not logical and it's not ideal - but
then logic and ideals are not what the FSFE are about... if logic and ideals
are what you prefer... I would recommend studying a higher level qualification
in philosophy maybe (despite the fact I think the system of Universities is
harmful too! right?)
/ m
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
> Here is my position, stated as "logically" as possible.
Okay, although I'm not sure this is the best way to approach things
because I suspect we may be arguing about tactics, not ethics.
Discouraging people from using FB for example can be restated as
'encouraging people to use FS'.
I prefer the second aim to the first because it is less dogmatic.
Discouragement implies moral wrongdoing, whereas encouragement promotes
the idea of gradients of bad behavior. I hope we can agree that pranking
someone in college with an ice bucket challenge is not in the same
category as state sponsored water boarding?... ideally perhaps neither
behavior ought to be tolerated but this distinction is very important to me.
I am fine about people using FB and about proprietary software, because
within the four freedoms there has to be the freedom to develop software
for private use.
Within the four freedoms, it seems consistent to allow people to develop
software and not share it, otherwise that is not freedom, that is
totalitarianism.
That is what FB have done and they have made a lot of money doing it. We
know it's bad but I uphold their right to do that. Some FS advocates
think all proprietary software should be banned (with no context
specific criteria) but I think that position is too dogmatic and my
activism is about eliminating proprietary software from the public
sphere while leaving individuals and companies to develop software
privately if they want, provided it is legal and not harming anyone. If
you believe proprietary software is inherently harmful , then I would
say 'okay', but for me - it almost always depends on what purpose it has
been designed for - I don't feel morally obliged to share and
share-alike the mobile computer game I made for my daughter, but when I
develop software for an educational establishment my sense of obligation
ramps up a lot.
So, with all of that out of the way - let's go through it.
P1: FSFE discourages people to use FB because FB TOS are unfair.
Agreed, though the reasons to avoid we already know are over-determined
(TOS is sufficient for your argument, if you'd like to modify / add more
that would also be fine but excessive)
P2: Trading the number of people you can reach out against the
consistency of your behavior (aligning your moral with your discourse)
is not a good idea.
This took me a while to unpack. I am still not sure if I understand this
premise correctly but i think the assumptions you are making here are:
A1) The rationale for staying on FB is about quantity ('number of people').
A1-R: I would say the main reason for FSFE being on FB is also about
quality. My thinking here is if you want to influence the behaviour of
facebook users and owners, a good place to start would be facebook? This
seems self-evident to me and would require persuasive evidence that
facebook users use facebook the same way as they use say, diaspora or
gnu social etc. I suspect you will struggle obtaining such evidence.
A2) Extending reach is not consistent with moral behaviour.
A2-R: This sounds like a charge of 'selling out'? If so, I wonder how
you arrive at this. Given P1, refusing an opportunity to act
consistently with P1 would actually be inconsistent?
On this reading P2 is not valid and thus requires more demonstration.
P3: If FSFE uses FB, then the FSFE behavior will be inconsistent with
what it promotes, whether it reaches more people or not.
This seems to be a remix of P2. I can't find any new information here
and thus it requires more demonstration (see my response to P2).
C: From that it logically follows that using FB is not a good idea for
the FSFE.
I agree that the confusion is at P2.
You say you 'strongly believe in B', (P2) but it requires further
demonstration around the assumptions you are making, then we can see if
there is anything to disagree on, because I suspect there isn't much we
disagree about - and it may all boil down to personal taste.
Personal taste wouldn't be something that I think requires FSFE to do
any work on.
>From this, it seems consistent for FSFE to use FB to 'discourage people
to use FB' which (restated) is not antithetical to the aim of
'encouraging people to use FS'
/ m
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: GDPR
Greetings, I take your point Jonas about disapora possibly matching facebook on the default privacy settings. I'll take your word on that for this discussion because it may be more significant to consider which of the two (diaspora/facebook) could be predicted to change the quickest to respond to the potential contravention. That techno-cultural aspect of FS (community) vs. proprietory (market-led) design features suggests to me it may be worth working something up on that... I may contact disapora for a view... I note the high requirements of GPDR too, and because proprietary software is much more likely to flout Open Standards I believe FS (and FSFE) is more naturally positioned to talk into this new legislative context without the need to shout, deliver free seminars or provide free food & drinks(!) Ioli - I am sure GDPR offers a great opportunity to promote FOSS - one way or another - the messaging could be quite powerful I think because the GDPR articulates many contemporary issues for companies and citizens. > Can we blame consumers or companies for choosing closed code over FOSS? Well, lets not blame... lets see it as a huge opportunity to educate both! > I would like to work with you, to help create relevant publicity about the true values of FOSS, including its inherent GDPR-readiness. Sounds like a plan... I think GDPR has so much social and political force and influence over large populations the FSFE would do well to talk into that space for lots of reasons... and all of them I think are positive and developing policy and orienting public affairs around that I believe would definitiely been effective and in the FSFE mission interest / mat ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: GDPR
Hi Jonas, Specifically, it seems to suggest to me that a fair number of proprietary platforms - facebook for example might contravene the 'Data protection by Design and by Default (Article 25)' that requires privacy settings to be set at a high level by default. As far as I remember, FB wants everyone to share as much as possible, because that's forms the basis of it's ad revenue model and so the default settings for new accounts and new posts for established accounts is 'global' rather than 'private'? I am sure there will be many other examples like this giving the FSFE a welcome opportunity to voice in the important conversations people are having about privacy and FB and others... I am thinking purely in terms of FSFE public affairs, raising the profile of the organization as a benign force for good rather than anything more ambitious I think. ENISA seems to be used to elaborate on what needs to be done and although separate from the GDPR looks to be very influential in the interpretation? / m On 07/08/17 08:20, Jonas Oberg wrote: > Hi Mat, > >> Is the FSFE planning anything on the GDPR? > What specifically is it that you would see as something for the FSFE to > engage in around the GDPR? What you quote sounded sensible to me, and are > points which should be valid and true regardless of free software or not. > > That ENISA doesn't consider open standards in relation to the cloud could > be something to work on, but that seems separate from the GDPR specifically. > -- Mat Witts Head of a Few Things YUJ IT (Informatics) https://docs.yuj.it/mat-witts YUJ IT (Informatics) is a trading name of YUJ CIC. A Community Interest Company registered in England and Wales No. 04859621. Registered Office: Florence Cottages, 5 Manor Road, Lower Moor, Worcestershire England WR10 2NZ ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: dual FSF and FSFE membership
> Hi Mat, > >> Given each org already has a charitable approach to subs leaving the >> choice to the individual may be the best strategy. > For the FSFE and FSF, this is clearly what we do. Which organisation you > support financially or with your volunteer time should depend on which > organisation you feel closest to and which organisations' activities you > would like to support. > > Our activities are largely disjoint and we typically do not have many > activities which we do together. That we're both a Free Software Foundation > might be confusing to some, but we also believe it's a great strength for > the community and our movement to have multiple voices giving weight to > the Free Software movement, and each with their own set of priorities and > activities. > > This is the correct analysis in my opinion. All other things being equal, the best thing that can happen to a small coffee shop is for another one to open across the street, because then the locality gets a better reputation for serving coffee and attracts more visitors. In a market where FS needs to obviously needs to 'compete' with non-free - the more FS orgs there are the better I think. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
Hi Bastien, > I believe even political points deserve to be based on logic > In fact, I’m *really* _really_ surprised so many people agree with using Facebook for spreading FLOSS values... guys???! >That’s my gut reaction. You have clearly abandoned your preference for a politics of logic here and opted to communicate your ideas using a politics of emotion really clearly - completely voluntarily and with no coercion - no logic here - just gut feelings - like you said. I suggested FSFE political activists ambitions will be realized much more effectively if they engage on the assumption that other people are emotionally attached to facebook (they are not using it 'logically' are they? In other words - we agree that being on FB is not a 'rational choice' because it is harming their individual freedom, right?). For FSFE to be on FB then seems contradictory, (we agree) because it is... but the alternative you are relying on depends on all FSFE's public affairs being controlled strictly within networks only running FS - which is not only impractical... it's also 'illogical' too. I think therefore we actually agree that politics is not logical at all... I hope so - and on that reading Facebook, along with all the other non-free software out there is both a threat AND an opportunity - not just a threat - after all - if non-free software didn't exist - there would be no need for the FSFE. Facebook then can (and should) be part of the strategy, because it's 'logical' to do so. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
I have yet to hear a convincing reason why messages should not occur on platforms like Facebook or Twitter on the single aim of efforts in getting people to use decentralized services and run with Free Software in the same way sometimes any agent tasked with the role of protecting the public will tell you that sometimes pointing a gun at someones head is the only way of getting a hostile person to drop their weapon. Zuckerberg won't let you talk to them on his platform, so you can't negotiate, so you need to tool up. This is the situation with users of Facebook for example. Once people put their weapons down, then we can talk about why they should not be persuaded to taken them up again. While they are using Facebook, a dogmatic approach will NOT be contradictory, it is consistent with political activism in the same way anti-capitalist campaigns still need money to run, Free Software needs Facebook - IF we want to effect Facebook users (and I'm sure we do?) It therefore does NOT potentially harm us in the long run. This dilemma is because of the idealistic goal of trying to 'ban all weapons' which for me is philosophically and practically unachievable. What we ought to be arguing for is NOT a moratorium on proprietory software but the equivalent of de-escalation or reduction which would be both desirable and achievable. Free software is an important principle, but we should not let our principles obstruct the need for important institutions and citizens to switch to Free Software, and the way to go about that is very different, it requires a practical STRATEGY AS WELL AS principled rhetoric. Mat Witts ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
