im sorry i broke the code

  • 1 Post
  • 181 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 23rd, 2023

help-circle
  • Because FOSS stands for both free software and people’s freedom. No one exists without a government except for external forces that are stronger than the government itself (lobbying is a way to strong arm a government), but this is another matter entirely.

    FOSS organisations should exist outside a government because governments are easily corruptible, which is has happened again and again throughout history and is slowly happening right now. And obeying the law not to be thrown in jail is a nice argument, yes, and a shitty one at that: imagine how good would be a German citizen to abide to the government rule during the Nazi period. This doesn’t mean either that they shouldn’t follow any laws, but that, much like any international organisation, they should be international laws agreed on by multiple nations.

    Which is essentially the crux of the matter: as long as FOSS projects work within the framework of a government (the US), the project can be easily hijacked, turned into something that goes against people interests. What are the people interests? In short, the minimum denominator is equality, freedom to speak, a right to privacy.

    If FOSS projects do have to follow a government’s laws, then contributing to one is free work for corporations: laws can be changed and a democratic society can turn into a non-democratic entity, with laws that restrict the freedom of its citizens; in EU they try to pass a “chat control” law to make cryptography useless [by adding a back door] and while I believe it won’t pass no doubt it’s a worrisome sign. At the end of the day who would benefit the most from FOSS but companies, which do so already?

    And to reiterate: sometime it’s better to be thrown in prison than to send someone else to their death












  • It’s truly sad to see people build their own little cages (echo chambers) based on stupid economic systems instead of exchanging ideas peacefully. Which is not a dog whistle, like a certain billionaire with a weird fetish for fake free speech, but an actual request to stop censoring people based on non-hateful beliefs and talk with the other part instead of performing a psycho delenda est and feeling so cool and strong and getting off that dopamine hit. Fuck.

    In short, no it makes no sense to ban people based on their non-hateful beliefs. It’s dystopian, it means people stopped listening to others and just pat their backs all the time. Fuck.




  • The users down here trying to teach you what it means while you know it better than them lmao.

    “Vote with your wallet” doesn’t mean “if you don’t like it don’t buy it” but if that you don’t like the new iteration of the product reason you shouldn’t buy it, thus letting the company know it wasn’t good enough and they should do better. This premise is flawed because it sounds like some democratic shit, but the only ones who can vote with their wallet are the whales that actually have % on that sweet company revenue: for the average user there is no vote because to matter it would have to scale with other consumers. Something so far unachievable because for a tiny, “loud” minority there is the clueless majority.