Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lautreamont wrote

pedophile apologetics.

Only part I can agree here. Also pretty sure it's "apology", not "apologetics".

Using proprietary, orwellian, closed source Internet 2.0 crap like Facebook/Instagram doesn't look like a good plan to promote FOSS and much less online privacy, lol. But they are very active on Twitter tho.

It's a failure on their part of how they didn't put more efforts in pushing for FOSS alternatives to these tech earlier, like 10 years back at least, when all they were doing is... not much. Like maybe if Pleroma/Mastodon would have been pushed in the early 10s we wouldn't have had all the Facebook mayhem.

4

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Please forgive me for being pedantic, but "apologetics" means the defense of something through reasoned arguments. So at Raddle most of us engage in trans rights apologetics, and anarchist philosophy apologetics.

Facebook and Instagram is horrific garbage, but so is Twitter and billions on Facebook and Instagram don't use Twitter. FSF should be active on all of them, and Youtube, and everywhere else.

Ten years ago they were pushing GNU Social, Friendica, and so forth and they were actually pretty good. But then and now I don't think the promotions were reaching the right audiences or written in a way that appealed to people that were not already FOSS fans.

1

lautreamont wrote (edited )

I don't think I ever heard of Friendica, but GNU Social maybe once. The FSF have been backward for at least 10 years and that may be related to their poor support within the developer world. They yet had a chance at pushing their stuff through the education system, yet they were facing Microsoft's dominion (or maybe collaborating with it by non-competing, I dunno).

So it's like, FSF was mostly just a PR group that had a level of influence through the GPL licensing. How they got somewhat beaten at this? By inclusive open source licenses multiplying. So I think there may have been this covert war between IP and FOSS for the last 10 years.

2

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I don't blame the FSF for losing the battle for education. First Microsoft and then later Apple and Google spent billions to get into that market, because they know most consumers that get accustomed to their products in schools will stick with them for the rest of their lives. I haven't seen the contracts, but I suspect the education discount for schools were huge because the companies viewed the project as a long term investment. A free software education system would be more costly because they couldn't subsidize the expenses from their other profits.

There has been an open war between IP and FOSS since the 1990s, and IP used permissive license software as their weapon - MIT, Apache, BSD, etc...

I don't think there's any parallel dimension with a capitalist world economy and a wildly successful FSF. There's too much money to be made by using DRM, invading privacy, and keeping trade secrets. I just suspect the FSF could be a lot more successful than they are now if they were run better - maybe have 2% of the global consumer market on FSF-approved hardware and devices instead of 0.00002%.

2

lautreamont wrote (edited )

First Microsoft and then later Apple and Google spent billions to get into that market,

Sure. You also forgot Facebook and Zoom more recently. Institutional support to tech products is a major factor in how they become mass spread. Especially for all the non-tech savvy people (who're notoriously Facebook's main crops). When you got the Facebook logo everywhere down to cereal boxes and people say "Google search it" all the time, but when "official" institutions like schools are also supporting it, you're pretty sure most people are gonna think these things cannot be avoided, ergo "there are no alternatives".

It's super fucked up now that students have been paying universities the same tuition fees for having classes on Zoom. Education system has totally bowed to Silicon Valley.

3