3 ms·

In your redefinition of free as a bobby trap, and out of the options you give which may not be exhaustive, I see my giving my attention as a paramount expressio

by cgio 11y ago

In your redefinition of free as a bobby trap, and out of the options you give which may not be exhaustive, I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom. Therefore, free does not mean get something out of nothing, or get something for nothing. Free is not even an attribute of the good per se; it is an attribute of the relationship between good and "consumer". What you do with a good and the amount of energy you have to expend to make use of it is an expression of freedom rather than a price. Price is conditioning and not characterising the relationship between good and consumer but the relationship between "producer/owner" and "consumer", you have to pay it before getting any relationship with the good. How would you see the same definition with regards to free software? Of course, you may choose to spend time on contributing, but that does not mean that you have to, and obligation is one of the components of price. In the case of electronic content, the thermodynamics laws are respected perfectly as we can all see by the operation of the network/path that transfers something, no need for an additional layer of finance to have physics working. EDIT: changed my high level definition of free

xlayn 11y ago
"I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom" The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search). "free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  >"free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it. It can refer to both and more. >The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search). This is either post hoc rationalization or bullshit ad marketer speak. You cannot claim, "oh, you watched the ad? you just paid for it!", unless a contract was in place before the ad was watched. You are describing something more akin to exploitation.
- cgio 11y ago
  I am not questioning the existence of monetisation models for things. That's why we have an economy. What I question is generalising the existence of monetisation models to say that there can be no free goods, especially when this is somehow argued with reference to natural laws and implying that free goods is an absurd or non-feasible concept. If we are to look into examples, what would you say with regards to reading Wikipedia, or Standord encyclopedia of philosophy. Are these ad-free channels defying a physical law?
  - eevilspock 11y ago
    There is no free lunch.

by cgio 11y ago

xlayn 11y ago

"I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom" The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search). "free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
>"free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it. It can refer to both and more. >The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search). This is either post hoc rationalization or bullshit ad marketer speak. You cannot claim, "oh, you watched the ad? you just paid for it!", unless a contract was in place before the ad was watched. You are describing something more akin to exploitation.
cgio 11y ago
I am not questioning the existence of monetisation models for things. That's why we have an economy. What I question is generalising the existence of monetisation models to say that there can be no free goods, especially when this is somehow argued with reference to natural laws and implying that free goods is an absurd or non-feasible concept. If we are to look into examples, what would you say with regards to reading Wikipedia, or Standord encyclopedia of philosophy. Are these ad-free channels defying a physical law?
- eevilspock 11y ago
  There is no free lunch.