6 ms·

It's actually worth reading the article to the end, because otherwise you'd be missing the amazing final paragraph: > Lastly, it’s good to remember nothing tru

by xg15 3y ago

It's actually worth reading the article to the end, because otherwise you'd be missing the amazing final paragraph: > Lastly, it’s good to remember nothing truly comes for free. Software costs money to develop. If you’re not paying towards that, then it’s likely you – or your data – are the product. We need to revolutionise how we think about our own data and what value it truly holds. Ignoring the fact that this is not how it works - there are plenty of services where you pay and still are the product - the last sentence makes it clear that the author sees privacy as the problem, not tracking.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
I don’t pay for bash yet I have plenty of excellent tooling in it thats free, and I’m not the product. Software can be released freely just like a poem can be. The people who develop popular software like one of the functions in bash I use for free probably aren’t hurting for work I’d imagine.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  They're working, but not necessarily getting paid.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > The people who develop popular software like one of the functions in bash I use for free probably aren’t hurting for work I’d imagine. I wouldn't assume that; I would donate what you can. I've been to two pay-what-you-can theater performances recently. How can I not give those people - who value every dime, who many others stiff, and where you know 100% goes to a worthy cause - more than the corporate productions, who couldn't care less about me or community and where the money goes to some billionaires and shareholders who couldn't care less about art and look forward to AI and cost-cutting layoffs. The last thing I want is the local artists, who do it for the art, to not see people's love and appreciation or to stop. Around 5-10 years ago, IIRC the maintainer of a relatively well-known Linux distro moved home to (Minnesota?) because they had no health insurance and couldn't afford the Bay Area (or something like that, my memory is sketchy). Also don't forget the sh-t-ton of abuse open source maintainers take.
- pixl97 3y ago
  You're also not executing bash on their servers, which is much different than say HackerNews even.
- alexvitkov 3y ago
  A lot of us are getting paid to use bash. Negative cost. Hyperfree software.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
scarface_74 3y ago
1. There are services that you pay for where you are still the product - true 2. There are services that you pay for where you are not the product 3. All services that you don’t pay for you are the product. So the first step is getting people to pay for the service
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Another way is to make it problematic for a commercial entity to provide high value services for free. Basically an anti-dumping law, but for digital goods.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Yes, and raise prices for everyone?
    - pc86 3y ago
      Maybe paying $10/mo for email or $199 once for a browser is a good thing. Maybe if people didn't feel like browsers and email and search were human rights that should be given to them freely, moral hazards be damned, the internet wouldn't be the clusterfuck that it is now?
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        There are millions of people in the world who buy unsubsidized Android phones for less than $60 a year in developing countries. Even in the US, the median cost of an Android phone is less than $300 and then you expect them to pay $200 for a browser? Besides, it’s never just a one time purchase. Is that one time purchase going to get you security updates and if so, for how long?
    - pixl97 3y ago
      You appear to be confusing the cost of something verses the price of something. I can eat junk food cheaply every day, I pay the price later.
_chu1 3y ago
Genuinely I would buy a boxed copy of the web browser I use (LibreWolf) for $60
lnxg33k1 3y ago
Word. I just tried to log in Godaddy to change some DNS records and it asked me to disable adblock/tracking protection, and I pay for the domain
tzs 3y ago
>> If you’re not paying towards that, then it’s likely you – or your data – are the product > Ignoring the fact that this is not how it works - there are plenty of services where you pay and still are the product That refutation of their statement is not how logic works. They made a !A -> B statement ("not pay" -> "you are product"). Your statement, ! (A -> !B), which is equivalent to B -> !A is orthogonal to their statement.

by xg15 3y ago

kjkjadksj 3y ago

I don’t pay for bash yet I have plenty of excellent tooling in it thats free, and I’m not the product. Software can be released freely just like a poem can be. The people who develop popular software like one of the functions in bash I use for free probably aren’t hurting for work I’d imagine.

robertlagrant 3y ago
They're working, but not necessarily getting paid.
wolverine876 3y ago
> The people who develop popular software like one of the functions in bash I use for free probably aren’t hurting for work I’d imagine. I wouldn't assume that; I would donate what you can. I've been to two pay-what-you-can theater performances recently. How can I not give those people - who value every dime, who many others stiff, and where you know 100% goes to a worthy cause - more than the corporate productions, who couldn't care less about me or community and where the money goes to some billionaires and shareholders who couldn't care less about art and look forward to AI and cost-cutting layoffs. The last thing I want is the local artists, who do it for the art, to not see people's love and appreciation or to stop. Around 5-10 years ago, IIRC the maintainer of a relatively well-known Linux distro moved home to (Minnesota?) because they had no health insurance and couldn't afford the Bay Area (or something like that, my memory is sketchy). Also don't forget the sh-t-ton of abuse open source maintainers take.
pixl97 3y ago
You're also not executing bash on their servers, which is much different than say HackerNews even.
alexvitkov 3y ago
A lot of us are getting paid to use bash. Negative cost. Hyperfree software.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

scarface_74 3y ago

1. There are services that you pay for where you are still the product - true 2. There are services that you pay for where you are not the product 3. All services that you don’t pay for you are the product. So the first step is getting people to pay for the service

makeitdouble 3y ago
Another way is to make it problematic for a commercial entity to provide high value services for free. Basically an anti-dumping law, but for digital goods.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Yes, and raise prices for everyone?
  - pc86 3y ago
    Maybe paying $10/mo for email or $199 once for a browser is a good thing. Maybe if people didn't feel like browsers and email and search were human rights that should be given to them freely, moral hazards be damned, the internet wouldn't be the clusterfuck that it is now?
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      There are millions of people in the world who buy unsubsidized Android phones for less than $60 a year in developing countries. Even in the US, the median cost of an Android phone is less than $300 and then you expect them to pay $200 for a browser? Besides, it’s never just a one time purchase. Is that one time purchase going to get you security updates and if so, for how long?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    You appear to be confusing the cost of something verses the price of something. I can eat junk food cheaply every day, I pay the price later.

_chu1 3y ago

Genuinely I would buy a boxed copy of the web browser I use (LibreWolf) for $60

lnxg33k1 3y ago

Word. I just tried to log in Godaddy to change some DNS records and it asked me to disable adblock/tracking protection, and I pay for the domain

tzs 3y ago

>> If you’re not paying towards that, then it’s likely you – or your data – are the product > Ignoring the fact that this is not how it works - there are plenty of services where you pay and still are the product That refutation of their statement is not how logic works. They made a !A -> B statement ("not pay" -> "you are product"). Your statement, ! (A -> !B), which is equivalent to B -> !A is orthogonal to their statement.