3 ms·
That's a good thought in isolation. The problem however is how are you going to ensure the money collected for that purpose go to the projects that actually nee
by badsectoracula 2y ago
That's a good thought in isolation. The problem however is how are you going to ensure the money collected for that purpose go to the projects that actually need it and there wont be any corruption involved?
It isn't hard to notice, for example, that in EU where gamedev companies often receive grants for various nebulous reasons tend to be companies that do not need the money in the first place (and yes, of course there are devs who received money that needed them, somehow people have to excuse the existence things they benefit from).
- anticorporate 2y agoI don't think you're going to solve corruption perfectly in any system, but isn't that a bit of a red herring? We manage to do this within other fields of endeavor, at least in the United States, by using an intermediary. Examples: National Science Foundation, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts.
- robertlagrant 2y agoIt's definitely not a red herring. Software is there to do something. Art isn't. If you're spending money on software, it's to do something, and if it's the wrong thing it's a waste of people's money.
- sneak 2y agoRedistributing tax money to economically unproductive (and usually worthless, as evidenced by the fact that people wouldn’t pay for it voluntarily) endeavors is a whole debate that has nothing to do with open source software. Ultimately if people value things, they will buy them. Forcing people to pay for things they don’t want to buy simply because you think it would be good for them is a special kind of tyranny.
- anticorporate 2y ago> Forcing people to pay for things they don’t want to buy simply because you think it would be good for them is a special kind of tyranny. Wait until you learn where the rest of your tax dollars get spent.