Just read the article.
"The median number of contributors to a free software project on SourceForge?
One. A lone developer." -- is this still the case?
I've always wondered how many people actually write or maintain free or open
source software. It seemed promising that with an increasing number of people
getting more computers and having access to internet that there might be more
people adopting the philosophy and software. However, if nonfree software and
locked up hardware is the norm, people are never going to be exposed to it by
default upon purchasing a device. Unless of course they know someone, or
actively research things, it doesn't seem so promising.
Consider how many people were up in arms over the Snowden leaks, yet they
happily gave facebook and google ALL of their data, willingly. I think the
problem came from the lack of perceived benefits and the notion that it was
"taken" from them, by the US government (and other spy agencies, for that
matter). Whereas with google and facebook, they're getting products and
services and are communicating with people - there's benefit in giving up
their privacy and anonymity. I wonder if it's like gambling - the benefits
seem to far outweight the loses, but humans are terrible at determining risks
and payoffs. There's more effort in thinking of things, than not thinking of
things.
I'd say most people are unthoughtful consumers of things in general. Most
people do not consider the rights of an animal they're about to eat, or
whether they were farmed or harvested sustainably. Most people do not
consider whether the $5 shirt they're wearing was made by a kid chained to a
sewing machine in south-east Asia. They're definitely not going to think
about whether ad device has power over them and lacks respect for their
freedom.
Is it an artefact of human psychology/neurology that we're terrible at
assessing risks, or is it a lack of education; something cultural?
