There are lots of other 
moments there.
"Single payer economies leads to bad things like Bolshevism and Stalin"
@UlyssesT@hexbear.net Let's hear your rant
I don't even need to say this but
FOSS has many, many problems but contributing to monopoly is not among htem.
Do not use the term FOSS, it conflates Free Software with Open Source
as it should, because open source software should be free. GNU can shove it.
They are seperate because they both have different motivation, tactics, and origins.
Open source could also be used to describe a development methodology (public repo that accepts pull requests/patches with a license that allows redistribution). Free means that the user is entitled to all 4 freedoms (use, study, modify and distribute, or redistribute).
The Free software movement works to create a world of entirely free software. Open source initiative does not make that claim. OSI is more pragmatics (at a cost) while the FSF is more ideologically focused (likewise)
We have this distinction because it matters and that it reduces confusion. GNU doesn't go "shove it."
on the other hand, maybe GNU should shove it? viral licensing is a nice hack, but its not like they're the only community that produces free/open source software. many groups share the objective, even if they don't all agree with the utility or importance of viral clauses. obviously, OSI is pretty much only there to make the concept more palatable to corpos, but i don't see any reason to be loyal to GNU.
I think you're being too reductive. Besides the fact that software packages produced by GNU are historically significant (without GNU there is no OSI or even linux), "viral licensing" is a not a good way to describe copyleft (what would you say about Creative Commons then?) and different forms of copyleft exist.
The GNU Project is not just software, it's a philosophy and political stance about people's right to control their computing. The ultimate aim of the project is to produce a Fully free operating system. People are "loyal" (if we accept that wording) to GNU because they believe in the idea of a completely free operating system that only uses free software.
I'm not here to antagonize you, have whatever personal (albeit critical) opinions about GNU or the FSF or whatever group in the FOSS community as you wish (believe me, I have my own hot takes). I just wanted to point out why the GNU Project is significant if not fundamental to the entire Free software ideology and misconceptions about it.
GNU can absolutely go shove it when they keep trying to shove GPLv3 down my throat.
Open Source is a corporate plot to dilute the meaning of software freedom
Actually, the gnu licenses (gplv3 and agplv3) are the best ones. Incredibly based licenses.
It's why google has stripped any typical userland component away in android and has rewritten or is rewriting everything in the MIT license. So that they can make it proprietary when and where it suits them. And of course they're doing the same for the kernel with Fuchsia.
Increasingly of the opinion that the only acceptable license is Public Domain.
Free Software or Open Source Software, depending on which one you're talking about. They are not the same thing and should not be grouped together.
Yeah but I like shorthand things and Stallman's a pedophile, idk, wish the space wasn't dominated by misogynistic weirdos
Stallman's personal failings in other areas doesn't discredit his essays on Free software. I don't care for Stallman but I don't want other people in this space to suffer more than they already have for his blunders.
The free software world is more open (pun) than it has ever been. The misogynists are on the way out lest they want someone like Drew Devault to write an essay exposing them (Hyprland)
Edit: in the last 2-3 years after the pandemic.
Yeah I just like FOSS as a term and a concept and I'm not really sure what's to be gained by tossing it for FLOSS. Maybe this is naive but I've found when a term speaks to people it catches really easily on the internet, like CSAM for CSAM being almost universally recognized overnight. I guess I just feel like if FOSS was worth throwing out for reasons other than "Actually I call it GNU/Linux" it would already be done; or it would feel more compelling to do so
I don't like either FOSS or FLOSS. But I see where you're coming from. I think FOSS is not worth arguing over in terms of changing what people already within the community say (compsci is already filled with strange terms), but I also want to clearly communicate the ideas of the 4 freedoms to outsiders coming in which FOSS doesn't do to those already unaware. "Our community" is already really niche as it is and also has bad actors who want to erase the freedom aspect as much as possible and using unclear and confusing terminology is a real tactic (look at people calling LLMs and machine learning "AI")
Acronyms don't explain anything by themselves to people who don't already understand them. Your example works because it's already self describing, FOSS isn't as much.
Bro I need me some four principles of the people shit. That's badass, I ain't been in the social aspect of Libre software for a while. We need a Sun Yat Sen emoji
No, don't toss it for FLOSS, FLOSS is the same thing and has the exact same problem as FOSS. Stop grouping them together entirely.
this is weird. in my circles, FOSS refers exclusively to Free Software. I've never heard it used in a way that mixes it with non-free but OSS software. people contrast FOSS with OSS to mean "possible licensing conflicts because the corporate policy disallows copyleft licenses" and the like. whereas, they use OSS to mean "totally kosher to use regardless of corporate policy". I might just work in more licensing sensitive positions though.
If you just mean Free Software which preserves all four fundamental software freedoms, the correct term is Free Software or Free (libre) Software. Open Source is a corporate plot to dilute software freedom by conflating it with mere source availability.
oh yeah, for sure. I just meant that FOSS is generally only used to describe Free Software. the acronym isn't great but I think the intent is the same.
If you mean Free Software say Free Software, don't let that OSS sneak into the acronym
I'm confused, are you saying you think FOSS means "Free or Open Source Software"?
I'm even more confused. it means "Free and Open Source Software" everywhere I can find and I've only ever heard it in contrast with OSS, especially by license conscious devs who want to avoid copyleft.
I work for a paycheck not because I like the positions the companies I work with take. personally? yes, I wish we outlawed everything else.
No, FOSS means Free and Open Source Software.
It is used to refer to software that is both free and open source.
Being open source is a necessary but not sufficient condition of software being Free, so Free Software already means that. FOSS is a corporate plot to conflate software that is merely open source with software that is fully Free.
Free means Free. Open Source means Open Source. FOSS refers to software that are both of those things.
Free means Free is an empty tautology that means nothing.
Free means software which preserves your four fundamental software freedoms: the freedom to run the program as you wish, the freedom to study and modify the program, the freedom to redistribute the program, and the freedom to distribute your modifications to the program.
Open source only protects part of the second freedom.
You know what? I thought the "Free" in FOSS meant only free as in free beer, while the Open Source part was the free as in free speech part, but upon further investigation I concluded that you are right. Have a nice day.
The most popular open source licenses are insufficiently militant and just create a new commons for capitalists to loot.
The most popular open source licenses are insufficiently militant and just create a new commons for capitalists to loot.
I treasure every piece of hate mail I get for my choice of the AGPLv3 in my projects, instead of the MIT or BSD licenses like so many others managing projects in the same niche.
Incredibly prolific harasser of women and talks a lot in official communiques about ephebophila
There was some good article I found the other day, I'll try and retrieve it as an edit later
Correction: Stallman is not part of open source initiative. His essays on Free software are seperate as well as the GNU Project and FSF.
I agree it's really narrow in practice. But the basic idea is that Free/libre pertains to your 4 freedoms while open source is about technical craft through a superior design philosophy. There are also historical considerations as OSI was derived from the initial Free software movement and was historically designed to appeal to corporations.
Stallman is very influential for his pioneering of Free software and the GPL/copyleft. But that's what it's limited to now. If you want an example, I contribute to GNU Guix which has put out a statement against Stallmans continued role in representing GNU.
People have very conflicting feelings about Stallman because the campaign for his removal was to be frank, a total clusterfuck. I'm not a Stallman supporter by any means, but it was bad.
that's a good statement and totally underscores my own feelings towards the man.
I feel so conflicted about Stallman. he's ideologically correct that free software must be protected from encroachment by capital -- but such a fucking creep/asshole on literally everything else.
I'm comfortable making a moral judgement on the pedophilia comments
Probably my most problematic fave of all time. He's such a lovable dork and right about everything a good 95% of the time, but then when he's wrong he's very very wrong
I still think I could fix him though.
that sounds like an issue with specific open source projects and not open source software as a whole
i would agree except it keeps happening so somewhere there is a fundamental problem even if that problem is societal
😭bruh be so fr. not trying to tell me closed source projects are better
He's playing into that absurd liberal "If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product" false dichotomy.
Here's a hot tip for anyone who still believes that mantra: there's absolutely no reason why you won't become the product while you're also paying for the service. In fact, due to the nature of capitalism, the companies which manage to sell your data or to manipulate you and which manage to get you to pay for it simultaneously are going to be the most successful over time (all things being equal for argument's sake.)
You think that if you're paying you're not going to be manipulated, like it's some sort of social contract in the era of digital media? Lol.
The entire conventional PR industry prior to the advent of computers has been predicated upon both manipulating you and getting you to pay for it. But you only need to look at any Google paid services (e.g. YouTube premium) or Roblox or anything similar to see people both paying for it and getting manipulated and being harvested for data to illustrate that his claim is entirely bogus.
This guy talks like a guru. And I mean that in the most derogatory way possible.
And this guy works at Microsoft, the company regularly pushing the "you're the customer and also the product" mindset and a frequent loss leader for capital writ large in being hated by literally everyone yet somehow apparently irreplaceable?
Just look at smart TVs. They all sell customer data, and you pay a premium to purchase them.
So-called "intellectual property rights" are literally government enforced monopolies wtf
I've read a couple of his books and he's got serious
which is a shame because he's gotta really good insight into what VR is capable of doing to our minds, but he's been anti-socialism since the days when most hackers were largely anti-capitalist robin hood archetypes. He knows and sees all the horrible shit capitalism and silicon valley does and is going to do, but just sticks his head in the sand and doubles down.This is from an interview he did with Ezra Klein in 2018. https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897738/jaron-lanier-interview
Jaron Lanier: The first thing I want to do is just confirm the degree of problem that exists... I still kinda have my meal card in Silicon Valley despite of all the things I say and so I'm in these conversations sometimes and I hear people who have done extremely well and have a lot of influence in Silicon Valley say things that just... send me reeling. Because they're just so appalling. And so a fairly typical line of conversation lately has gone something like this:
Lanier: Well you know, um automation is coming and a whole lot of people are going to be thrown out of work. Many many millions of people, many hundreds of millions because they won't be driving anymore, they won't be doing so many other things. We think we can have our algorithms be better teachers, better nurses. All, even the sort of supposedly human-centric "safe" things. Or in the worst case, we'll only need a little bit of human labor to cover the rough spots of the algorithms. But the question is what to do with all these people and a lot of them have been saying, "Ya know, this Opioid addiction crisis has come up at just the right time because actually it will be easier for everybody if a lot of the people that aren't needed are just sedated all the time." Like this is actually positive.
Ezra: Do people actually say that to you?
Lanier: Yeah, I've heard that a number of times, it's sort of an internal talking point that comes up. Yeah I've heard that. Yeah um. I mean, I always fight it, but yeah sure, I've heard it. And I'm not saying everybody says it, but I'm saying there's... it's the sort of thing that one hears. And one definitely hears that...
Ezra: I'm completely flabbergasted.
LAnier: Yeah, I know, I know.
Ezra: That another human being would make this comment to another human being.
Lanier: Yeah, I don't want to name the specific people who have done it, but they're known names, you know? And uh, similarly with the idea of technology being addicted, of using the different techniques like noisy feedback which is what's used in gambling to make gambling addictive. Of using these things to addict people to information systems, it's a very similar argument. That we need to have the people in some sort of a "spot" where they're not going to just burn everything down when they don't have jobs. And then um, the basic income model is thought of as a kind of a ma.. It's kind of like in the matrix movies, ya know? It's just this way to maintain this population of people who aren't doing anything and aren't needed.
Yeah, I don't want to name the specific people who have done it, but they're known names, you know?
Coward
Totally. In his book Who Owns the Future he warns of the danger of data collection by what he calls Siren Servers (aka monopolies) but his answer to it is that we should instead tokenize all our data and each individual could make money by spending their days managing their data to the highest bidder. He knows what the fucking problems are but he's got a giagantic
'SOCIALISM BAD' button that if you get anywhere near it he loses a considerable amount of his cognitive abilities. Like in that same Ezra Klein interview he's called out for how unsustainable that would be and how people would just find themselves forced to give up their data in order to access services anyway and he just umms his way out of addressing it.
Its just math, bro. You can't argue with it, bro. Long tail of risk made manifest, my dude. We have to be effective altruists, guy. Its really simple but I can't show any of it to you. I just can't show you what's in the box or how it works, because then that would ruin the magic. You don't need to know how any of this stuff works, dawg. Don't look behind the curtain, there's nobody back here. Stop asking all these stupid questions, you're not smart enough to understand, I swear, stop looking or the magic will go away! Dawg, you just gotta trust me, I'm good for it everything is fine, just stop asking how AI works guy dude bro STAWP!
I will step in for Ulysses in the mean time :)
Single player economies leads to bad things like Bolshevism and Stalin
It truly fascinates me how these super mega-brained silicon tech geniuses (in all their genius) just can’t seem to reckon with the fact that capitalism has left a trail of blood like no other. But what are the “bad things?” Worker autonomy? Redistribution? Oppressed people taking back power? Can’t you just admit that you’re arguing from a moral framework at this point? Odd how no one ever does. It just has to be the case that anything but capitalism is evil and bad as a consequence of simply challenging existing ideology.
Jesus fuck. Are we really going to pretend like it’s possible to quantify something as a complex as a monopoly? Economics is not a science no matter how hard you try to make it so, and economists will eventually cave to this if you dig deep enough. I think they’re renowned in the STEM world for the pretty remarkable feat of enrolling in graduate-level courses as a high school student, but they are very clearly not objective. How the fuck can you possibly make a claim about the veracity of something leading to a monopoly? As I’ve said on this site before, I’m the furthest thing from a philosopher, but how is that not an absurd claim?
All the proof you need to know that our collective understanding of intelligence means jack shit. I sometimes think “Yeah, I guess since there’s this general trend of certain people taking a test annd answering logically/computationally complex questions with ease, maybe IQ is somewhat valid.”
But then I think back to people like Hawking and Einstein who would’ve unquestionably performed well on those types of tests but had an entirely different worldview. And I really can’t help but think it all comes down to philosophy, namely ethics and what we ought to do as human beings.
These thoughts brought to you by a brain that just finished reading Bullshit Jobs so I would like to thank David Graeber for his help with this post.
Yer not using enough emotes nor repeating how detached from reality and deep into their own asses these reptiles are to fill Ulysses void
What the fuck is an extropian?
You got decades of lore about these reptiles eh
I saw the military-industrial complex set up shop there.
But according to Palo Alto Uber Alles the MIC and Silicon Valley goes back like 50 years
Beat entropy itself
Ah, the Hubris Society
They benefit directly from the system. To question it would mean losing their cushy 6 figure salary where they get to spend all day googling "how do I code this?" and feeling superior to us mere mortals who don't understand the incredible magic of "programming." They have a vested self-interest in defending the status quo, they're modern intelligentsia.
It is difficult to get a [person] to understand something, when [their] salary depends upon [them] not understanding it!
"Single payer economies leads to bad things like Bolshevism and Stalin"
Dude is against open source cuz "it mathematically leads to monopoly" while working for Microsoft.
capitalism leads to monpoly. not open source. why does capitalism lead to monopoly? because capitalism is competitive, and competitions have winners and losers. when a loser enterprise is vanquished under capitalism, it is either driven from the market through bankruptcy, or it is absorbed/merged into a winner enterprise. Eventually the winner enterprises get so big that it is prohibitively expensive to enter the market in competition with them, and smaller firms simply become auxiliary forces for the large firms, to be absorbed when the charade of separateness is no longer useful. Once all firms are vanquished/absorbed/made into auxiliaries, you have a vertically and horizontally integrated monopoly enterprise. How do you get rid of this monopoly? Under socialism, you would nationalize it. Under capitalism, you simply "trust bust" it like Teddy Roosevelt did, and force a RETVRN to the state of competition. In both situation,
will complain that you are "punishing winners", of course."Single payer economies leads to bad things like Bolshevism and Stalin"
Even if you think Communism is bad, this is idiotic. Single payer policies alone aren't socialism. If an imperialist capitalist state has free health care, Lenin is not going to rise from the grave. And Tsarist Russia, on the eve of the October Revolution did not have a "Single Payer Economy" which led to Bolshevism lmfao.
What led to Bolshevism was the failures of the Tsar and his ministers, the Russo-Japanese War, WW1, the black hundreds, the pogroms, the failure of the 3 dumas, the failure of Stolypin's reforms, the failure of the provisional government and Kerensky, etc. etc. etc. shit this bazinga brain has probably never even read about.
Eventually the winner enterprises get so big that it is prohibitively expensive to enter the market in competition with them, and smaller firms simply become auxiliary forces for the large firms, to be absorbed when the charade of separateness is no longer useful. Once all firms are vanquished/absorbed/made into auxiliaries, you have a vertically and horizontally integrated monopoly enterprise.
Lemme tell you about a lil' something called "Innovation"
Under communism, there is no innovation because everyone is forced to do the same thing or they get shot. Under capitalism, innovation is rewarded by 1 person becoming a billionaire and everyone else also gets richer because capitalism is when people have money. Do you want people to have no money? No innovation? I know what it's like to live in a communist country (I was born in Ukraine in 1999) and let me tell you, you would change your mind very quickly if you experienced the reality of it.
If there was a monopoly under capitalism, the people would simply vote with their wallets to promote healthy competition because capitalism is synonymous with democracy. Arguably the only thing more democratic than capitalism is the blockchain. I have been huffing lead paint for the past 3 hours straight.
I have been huffing lead paint for the past 3 hours straight.
just as
intended
failure of Stolypin’s reforms
His agrarian reform purpose was to entrench kulaks, which was pretty sucessful, though not enough to prevent revolution.
If its all going to tend to monopoly, then why are there so many Linux distros, even after 30 years? FOSS is based
If open software tends to monopoly, why is there so many communism splinters? Either communism isn't software or that's bullshit
Okay... the most charitable interpretation I can give that, is that he means that open source models would lead to monopoly by outcompeting other models, assimilating all other enhancements into an already popular model that has widespread usage. This is in fact the only interpretation that we can go off of because all of the others would just be outright falsehoods. And of course he doesn't say anything more specific to inform us about any other options.
My response is: Yes, I do hope they will. Fuck your profit margins.
Monopolization of what exactly? The use of the FOSS software?
It's not anyone's fault that FOSS is objectively superior in every way.
Monopoly is when my favorite tech giant doesn't own the entire market.
