4 ms·

I don't get how you go from “you should be able to know what runs on your computer” to “we should eliminate private ownership and free trade”.

by xigoi 3y ago

amatecha 3y ago
I imagine if you give it long enough and try to uphold an expectation of "knowing/controlling what runs on your computer(s)" you will gradually gain a serious dislike of proprietary software and come to understand why people feel that capitalism and open source do not get along (and never will). The whole field of proprietary commercial software is VERY coercive. Your ability to truly control what runs on your machine decreases every day. Want to keep being able to talk with your friends and family? Better update the respective app, even though it removed one of the key features you relied on or enjoyed. Oh hey, now another feature you really liked is subscription-only! No going back, either, once you updated you're locked into that functionality forever. Oh yeah, if you don't update automatically, you'll just constantly be harassed by manipulative dialog boxes that say never let you actually say "no", your choices are "yes I submit" or "maybe I'll give in to your demands later". All these coercive features are strictly driven by exactly one thing: profit. That is the absolute defining factor of all coercive functionality in modern software. The primary driver of open source software is providing something useful to empower people and improve their lives (even in a trivial sense like some inconsequential mini-game or utility only the author cares about). The primary driver of proprietary software is profit. Actual benefit to humans is literally secondary -- if businesses could ship software that is made with zero lines of code and provides zero benefit to anyone, but people still paid $100 for it? They'd absolutely ship that without hesitation! Really, I can talk about this dichotomy all day, because I've been recognizing this extreme contrast increasingly every day for years as I became more and more disillusioned by the increasing hostility I've experienced from the OSes and software I thought were trying to empower me but truly only care about extracting money from me (with usefulness seeming like a side effect begrudgingly fulfilled).
- xigoi 3y ago
  The good thing about free markets is that you are free to choose to not use proprietary software. Unfortunately, there is some proprietary software that you have to use to function normally in the modern society. Chat apps, as you mentioned, banking apps, etc. – precisely because the markets for such software are not free. That's not a problem with capitalism itself, but with insufficient regulation. The new regulation by the EU (Digital Markets Act) will hopefully eventually sort out the situation with chat apps and inspire more regulation to address similar problems. On the other hand, I can easily imagine a communist government requiring people to use certain proprietary software.
shapefrog 3y ago
Probably the way that for most people "free open source software" means 1) Zero cost 2) Some other stuff
andrepd 3y ago
Capitalism and free trade are orthogonal concepts, and the tired trope of "criticise capitalism = so you think we should abolish trade and private property" is boring. Yawn.
- xigoi 3y ago
  > and the tired trope of "criticise capitalism = so you think we should abolish trade and private property" Property rights and voluntary exchange are the main characteristics of capitalism. What else do you want to abolish, if not that?
  - SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
    Why not just abolish corporate ownership?
    - Jensson 3y ago
      That prevents you from trading with certain people. Example: I want to sell my labor to B for a salary, but due to corporate ownership being banned I am not allowed to. If you just limit the size of corporations, that will still happen when B has grown a bit and is unable to hire more people due to having hit the cap. What if we transfer the company to some other entity? Well, I want to sell my labor to B, not to that new entity. Maybe I'm friends with B, or maybe I believe in B's vision, maybe B is giving me joint ownership of the corporation, or some other reason, doesn't matter why it still is a legal limitation.
TotalCrackpot 3y ago
There is no free market in capitalism, because it creates monopolies, and you easily could have some form of market socialism with workers cooperative based economy.
- xigoi 3y ago
  Capitalism doesn't inherently create monopolies. Badly regulated capitalism does.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. If you don't prevent people from organizing then they will organize and create a new power structure. See workers unionizing, corporations becoming monopolies, maffias, rebels becoming kings etc etc. So this has nothing to do with capitalism, it happens under every single system unless you have strong forces to prevent it. If you ban companies, then informal companies will appear in the form of mafias or similar (we call medieval maffias nobles), and those will completely ignore any regulations and therefore be the worst kind of capitalism.
    - zero-st4rs 3y ago
      > Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. > .. > So this has nothing to do with capitalism Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no?. Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism (edit: this is incorrect)) at best. The whole talking point (when it is convenient) around "free enterprise" is the lack of regulation, see neoliberalism. Regulation is also not the answer when the people in charge of regulation are or are funded by the corporate entities being regulated. Worker cooperatives or really any economic system that privileges socially intentional results is simply a better model. I'd much rather own the means of my production than have someone else regulate the work I also do for someone else. I'd also happen to need less government and have more agency to care for the welfare of others. Hmmm..
      - 3y ago

I don't get how you go from “you should be able to know what runs on your computer” to “we should eliminate private ownership and free trade”.

by xigoi 3y ago

I don't get how you go from “you should be able to know what runs on your computer” to “we should eliminate private ownership and free trade”.

amatecha 3y ago

I imagine if you give it long enough and try to uphold an expectation of "knowing/controlling what runs on your computer(s)" you will gradually gain a serious dislike of proprietary software and come to understand why people feel that capitalism and open source do not get along (and never will). The whole field of proprietary commercial software is VERY coercive. Your ability to truly control what runs on your machine decreases every day. Want to keep being able to talk with your friends and family? Better update the respective app, even though it removed one of the key features you relied on or enjoyed. Oh hey, now another feature you really liked is subscription-only! No going back, either, once you updated you're locked into that functionality forever. Oh yeah, if you don't update automatically, you'll just constantly be harassed by manipulative dialog boxes that say never let you actually say "no", your choices are "yes I submit" or "maybe I'll give in to your demands later". All these coercive features are strictly driven by exactly one thing: profit. That is the absolute defining factor of all coercive functionality in modern software. The primary driver of open source software is providing something useful to empower people and improve their lives (even in a trivial sense like some inconsequential mini-game or utility only the author cares about). The primary driver of proprietary software is profit. Actual benefit to humans is literally secondary -- if businesses could ship software that is made with zero lines of code and provides zero benefit to anyone, but people still paid $100 for it? They'd absolutely ship that without hesitation! Really, I can talk about this dichotomy all day, because I've been recognizing this extreme contrast increasingly every day for years as I became more and more disillusioned by the increasing hostility I've experienced from the OSes and software I thought were trying to empower me but truly only care about extracting money from me (with usefulness seeming like a side effect begrudgingly fulfilled).

xigoi 3y ago
The good thing about free markets is that you are free to choose to not use proprietary software. Unfortunately, there is some proprietary software that you have to use to function normally in the modern society. Chat apps, as you mentioned, banking apps, etc. – precisely because the markets for such software are not free. That's not a problem with capitalism itself, but with insufficient regulation. The new regulation by the EU (Digital Markets Act) will hopefully eventually sort out the situation with chat apps and inspire more regulation to address similar problems. On the other hand, I can easily imagine a communist government requiring people to use certain proprietary software.

shapefrog 3y ago

Probably the way that for most people "free open source software" means 1) Zero cost 2) Some other stuff

andrepd 3y ago

Capitalism and free trade are orthogonal concepts, and the tired trope of "criticise capitalism = so you think we should abolish trade and private property" is boring. Yawn.

xigoi 3y ago
> and the tired trope of "criticise capitalism = so you think we should abolish trade and private property" Property rights and voluntary exchange are the main characteristics of capitalism. What else do you want to abolish, if not that?
- SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
  Why not just abolish corporate ownership?
  - Jensson 3y ago
    That prevents you from trading with certain people. Example: I want to sell my labor to B for a salary, but due to corporate ownership being banned I am not allowed to. If you just limit the size of corporations, that will still happen when B has grown a bit and is unable to hire more people due to having hit the cap. What if we transfer the company to some other entity? Well, I want to sell my labor to B, not to that new entity. Maybe I'm friends with B, or maybe I believe in B's vision, maybe B is giving me joint ownership of the corporation, or some other reason, doesn't matter why it still is a legal limitation.

TotalCrackpot 3y ago

There is no free market in capitalism, because it creates monopolies, and you easily could have some form of market socialism with workers cooperative based economy.

xigoi 3y ago
Capitalism doesn't inherently create monopolies. Badly regulated capitalism does.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. If you don't prevent people from organizing then they will organize and create a new power structure. See workers unionizing, corporations becoming monopolies, maffias, rebels becoming kings etc etc. So this has nothing to do with capitalism, it happens under every single system unless you have strong forces to prevent it. If you ban companies, then informal companies will appear in the form of mafias or similar (we call medieval maffias nobles), and those will completely ignore any regulations and therefore be the worst kind of capitalism.
  - zero-st4rs 3y ago
    > Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. > .. > So this has nothing to do with capitalism Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no?. Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism (edit: this is incorrect)) at best. The whole talking point (when it is convenient) around "free enterprise" is the lack of regulation, see neoliberalism. Regulation is also not the answer when the people in charge of regulation are or are funded by the corporate entities being regulated. Worker cooperatives or really any economic system that privileges socially intentional results is simply a better model. I'd much rather own the means of my production than have someone else regulate the work I also do for someone else. I'd also happen to need less government and have more agency to care for the welfare of others. Hmmm..
    - 3y ago