4 ms·
With the (welcome) move to web architecture, free software is not as important as free data, i.e. the freedom to move your data to another provider. We may all
by idiopathic 17y ago
With the (welcome) move to web architecture, free software is not as important as free data, i.e. the freedom to move your data to another provider. We may all be slaves, but we should have the freedom to choose our master.
Like you, I would also rather that website owners had real incentives to please their users. I disagree on the solution: data lock-in _removes_ the website owner's incentive, instead they can just rely on the fact that you are stuck with them, rather than pleased with them.
- axod 17y agoGood point, and I agree. People should always be free to get at the data they have on a website, and move to an alternative website. That's certainly something worth fighting for.
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoIs locked in data really a bad thing? We all have to make money somehow. I'd rather website owners had real incentive to please their users, and being able to make money is a good incentive. I don't see how free data can really be relevant on the web. If facebook want to do something to drive users away, or ristrict users freedom, that's up to them. If they do it enough, someone else will setup a rival website that pleases users better. How does free data fit into this? I don't think it does. Most website is simple enough that you don't need free data. Any one of us could clone facebook's massive social network if we had enough time and determination. Letting users own their data is certainly a nice thing to do, and I'm sure we'd be lost without our own data, but I think it makes less sense on the web. As I've said before, I don't use X because its data is free, I use it because it's free, and there are people behind it who care. I think that's all that matters really.
- axod 17y agoI don't see how you seem to equate users data, with source code. The two are entirely different things.