Did PewDiePie Just Crack the Code for How to Present Libre Software?
-
Yes because in this case it's relevant. You are right that being mentioned by a bad person is not necessarily proof of anything. But like I said, in this case it is connected to the content and community that PewDiePie has.
Then you should say that.
-
I'm not saying that right means freedom but what makes you think that left means freedom?
Progressive idealogies espouse freedom for all not simply those with money.
-
The challenge is that we're not just selling software, we're selling an idea - the idea that users deserve control over their computing. We're not competing on the proprietary software marketplace, we're offering an alternative to it.
We are already seeing the proprietary software world enshittify. More and more "non-tech" people are looking for a way out. The challenge is to demonstrate that these problems are inherent to the world of proprietary software and not just because "Google is evil."
Sure it's a challenge, but it's not necessary for getting people to use the software. One does not require the other, but it is a gateway to being able to do that.
It is self-evident that free software with open licensing and no strings attached is a superior and more beneficial ownership model than closed source paid licensing. That part I don't think anyone needs to be convinced of.
It's just not necessary to make that one of your core beliefs, or add several others, before using the software.
-
The fact that PewDiePie might have a right-leaning following, that he acquired by himself leaning right, which he now exposes to Freedom, using Libre Software, might actually be a good thing. Since exposing yourself to the philosophy of Free Software eventually leads to human rights and thus to the left, in a way. If PewDiePie course-correcting to the left like this, taking his enormous subscriber-base with him, IMO it is very good.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The problem with this is that it leaves left-leaning people using tech companies and slick, highly-produced products as status items. iphones and macbooks are still solid left-leaning status objects.
Also, the right doesn't mind being scrappy and using janky, poorly configured crap if it appears to meet their agenda. Nearly every right-leaning social media platform is either a platform with a Mastadon backend, or some early 2000's style forum.
-
The fact that PewDiePie might have a right-leaning following, that he acquired by himself leaning right, which he now exposes to Freedom, using Libre Software, might actually be a good thing. Since exposing yourself to the philosophy of Free Software eventually leads to human rights and thus to the left, in a way. If PewDiePie course-correcting to the left like this, taking his enormous subscriber-base with him, IMO it is very good.
Didn't do that for me, still believe in human rights and don't embrace the left wing. I believe in the freedom to make contracts with people without the government telling you that your profits are too high or whatever the left wing is pushing for
-
Nazis are everywhere, not just OSS. Never seen one in OSS though
Lunduke?
-
Maybe the fact that the left supports improved working rights, unionisation, free education, equality of opportunities and between nations, freer borders for people...
Equality of opportunities for blacks and Latinos means discrimination for Asians. And people here wonder why Trump won votes from people who are not white men
-
Sure it's a challenge, but it's not necessary for getting people to use the software. One does not require the other, but it is a gateway to being able to do that.
It is self-evident that free software with open licensing and no strings attached is a superior and more beneficial ownership model than closed source paid licensing. That part I don't think anyone needs to be convinced of.
It's just not necessary to make that one of your core beliefs, or add several others, before using the software.
It is self-evident that free software with open licensing and no strings attached is a superior and more beneficial ownership model than closed source paid licensing. That part I don't think anyone needs to be convinced of.
As someone who has both technical and nontechnical people in their family, I call bs. Even if it is partially self-evident (in the fact that you dont need to sign into an account or pay for it), the details, and more importantly the weight, of FOSS is often lost on people.
I've had to watch some of them walk into a rake and bruise their foreheads several times over before really absorbing it.
It's something people need to really read up on before true comprehension. That, or get burnt really really badly.
Ideology? Politics? Tomato tomatoh in my eyes. At the very least, they're nearly inseperable (think: DMCA, copyright law, etc.)
-
Oh you even got the iWarning lol
What's this warning thing? (for those of us far outside of the Apple ecosphere)
-
The fact that PewDiePie might have a right-leaning following, that he acquired by himself leaning right, which he now exposes to Freedom, using Libre Software, might actually be a good thing. Since exposing yourself to the philosophy of Free Software eventually leads to human rights and thus to the left, in a way. If PewDiePie course-correcting to the left like this, taking his enormous subscriber-base with him, IMO it is very good.
Idk. There's already plenty of right wingers (libertarians) in FLOSS spaces. I'd hate to see any more.
-
What's this warning thing? (for those of us far outside of the Apple ecosphere)
It’s basically an ad to tell people their phone isn’t private and they should buy a Purism phone
-
i've got a problem with what ESR calls open source.
like, the fact that free software is inherently political has been explored elsewhere in the thread, but the term "open source" was started by people who wanted to distance themselves from the free software movement due to them disliking that it was anti-commercial. the open source movement wanted more companies to adopt their code, in contrast to the GNU people trying to stop their work being absorbed into the old big iron.
and they won.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The Free Software movement wasn't really anti-commercial, they explicitly allow commercial purposes as part of the freedoms to protect, it's part of the first freedoom they defend, "freedom zero".
And it's not like the open source movement wasn't inherently political either.. wanting more companies to join the movement is actually a political position.
But also, it's not like the Free Software movement didn't want to have more companies adopt their philosophy.. they did want that, I mean that would have been awesome if it had happened. And when possible the FSF has actively tried to convince companies to get on board, they even have run programs to help companies promote themselves as certified by the FSF, such as the "Respects Your Freedom (RYF)" certification.
What makes the Free Software movement different is that they actively see proprietary software as evil. They see freedom as a right, something mandatory, not something to merely be "open" to. Going out of your way to not use closed source software, to the point of crippling yourself digitally if necessary, is then the ethically correct behavior. Whereas the "open source" movement sees it more as an option, something that can be useful but not strictly necessary, they wont consider it inherently bad/evil to use proprietary.
This is akin to someone considering buying ethically sourced shoes as something optional vs considering it a moral obligation so as to not be complicit to evil practices. Or say.. saving energy being an option that might be convenient for you personally vs a moral obligation with the planet.
The business model at the time for most commercial projects was based on offering software as a product, not as a service, so they didn't want to release their code. When eventually the shift towards services started to happen, companies gravitated towards the "open" side because it allowed them to take advantage of free software while retaining proprietary software for those situations in which it benefited them, without being flagged as "evil" by the same community they were working with.
