4 ms·

> we did it to ourselves Most people don't know that we did it. They still happily click on "accept all" and blame it on EU to need to do that. They don't know

by ruszki 2y ago

> we did it to ourselves Most people don't know that we did it. They still happily click on "accept all" and blame it on EU to need to do that. They don't know what the heck is that, and why they should understand what's written there. When they are asked cleanly, and simply whether they want to share their data to thousands of shady companies, about only a quarter choose yes. That's why Facebook had to force everybody in the EU to choose between paying and accepting it.

globular-toast 2y ago
Everyone I know did, because I told them. But they did it anyway. Now we wish it was only as bad as Facebook was 15 years ago. Divide and conquer tactics work. Microsoft, Facebook and Apple all use it to great advantage. The funny thing is it was always about free software. Not enough people listened to Stallman. None of this could have happened if people rejected non-free software.
- nalekberov 2y ago
  It could, and it happened, not long time ago, everyone thought just because xz software was free software, it's 100% safe, but it was not. There are numerous examples. Stallman lives in his own delusional world, and GPL not only solved the problem, it created more burden, that developers decided to use other less restrictive licenses.
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    > There are numerous examples Such as? > it created more burden In what way?
    - nalekberov 2y ago
      > Such as? You can search the web, but as an appetiser here you go: https://jfrog.com/blog/malware-civil-war-malicious-npm-packages-targeting-malware-authors/ https://jfrog.com/blog/malware-civil-war-malicious-npm-packa... > In what way? Well, you can't bundle GPL licensed software with less restrictive one such as BSD, which is a big deal, that's why BSD and GNU/Linux are so separated in many ways. That's just one problem. It'c clear that all-or-nothing approach doesn't work in free and open source software world.
      - dmm 2y ago
        > Well, you can't bundle GPL licensed software with less restrictive one such as BSD Sure you can. If the result is a derivative work redistribution is subject to the terms of the GPL but you can bundle all you want.
        nalekberov 2y ago
        Technically yes, you are right, in practice it's a pain because of GPL's restrictions.
        globular-toast 2y ago
        No it's not, it's dead easy. What restrictions are you referring to? GPL doesn't care what you apply it to and there's no restrictions on its use. The only restrictions that would matter are those of the original licence, BSD, which is permissive.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
Many know by now, but find the trade-off worth it for convenience or whatever they're getting in return. I mean, people are willingly giving up their DNA. But, if it was the government receiving all of this data, they'd be in a panic. This has basis in current day fear-mongering about government power, as well as warnings about authoritarian governments from Orwell and beyond. Not to say there's no reason to be concerned, but the casual mentions of 1984 are hilariously dated and ironic in 2024. More substantively, it also reveals the naivete of those who wish to completely disempower their democratic governments. That is, someone will still retain the power when it's taken from the government. The only question is who and whether everyday people will have a voice in their own governance. One look at corporate power and our deference there is a pretty big hint.

by ruszki 2y ago

globular-toast 2y ago

Everyone I know did, because I told them. But they did it anyway. Now we wish it was only as bad as Facebook was 15 years ago. Divide and conquer tactics work. Microsoft, Facebook and Apple all use it to great advantage. The funny thing is it was always about free software. Not enough people listened to Stallman. None of this could have happened if people rejected non-free software.

nalekberov 2y ago
It could, and it happened, not long time ago, everyone thought just because xz software was free software, it's 100% safe, but it was not. There are numerous examples. Stallman lives in his own delusional world, and GPL not only solved the problem, it created more burden, that developers decided to use other less restrictive licenses.
- globular-toast 2y ago
  > There are numerous examples Such as? > it created more burden In what way?
  - nalekberov 2y ago
    > Such as? You can search the web, but as an appetiser here you go: https://jfrog.com/blog/malware-civil-war-malicious-npm-packages-targeting-malware-authors/ https://jfrog.com/blog/malware-civil-war-malicious-npm-packa... > In what way? Well, you can't bundle GPL licensed software with less restrictive one such as BSD, which is a big deal, that's why BSD and GNU/Linux are so separated in many ways. That's just one problem. It'c clear that all-or-nothing approach doesn't work in free and open source software world.
    - dmm 2y ago
      > Well, you can't bundle GPL licensed software with less restrictive one such as BSD Sure you can. If the result is a derivative work redistribution is subject to the terms of the GPL but you can bundle all you want.
      - nalekberov 2y ago
        Technically yes, you are right, in practice it's a pain because of GPL's restrictions.
        globular-toast 2y ago
        No it's not, it's dead easy. What restrictions are you referring to? GPL doesn't care what you apply it to and there's no restrictions on its use. The only restrictions that would matter are those of the original licence, BSD, which is permissive.

unclebucknasty 2y ago

Many know by now, but find the trade-off worth it for convenience or whatever they're getting in return. I mean, people are willingly giving up their DNA. But, if it was the government receiving all of this data, they'd be in a panic. This has basis in current day fear-mongering about government power, as well as warnings about authoritarian governments from Orwell and beyond. Not to say there's no reason to be concerned, but the casual mentions of 1984 are hilariously dated and ironic in 2024. More substantively, it also reveals the naivete of those who wish to completely disempower their democratic governments. That is, someone will still retain the power when it's taken from the government. The only question is who and whether everyday people will have a voice in their own governance. One look at corporate power and our deference there is a pretty big hint.