Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:09:32 +0200
Alexandre Garreau <galex-713@galex-713.eu> wrote:
> Le mardi 13 juillet 2021, 20:00:44 CEST Celejar a écrit :
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:28:39 +0200
> > Alexandre Garreau <galex-713@galex-713.eu> wrote:
> > > Le mardi 13 juillet 2021, 14:01:58 CEST Celejar a écrit :
> > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:54:43 +0300
> > > > Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> wrote:
> > > > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in -
> > > > > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from
> > > > > them
> > > > > regardless of whom is controlling them.
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean by calling them non-gratis services? I know that
> > > > some
> > > > of their services are non-gratis, but basic code hosting certainly
> > > > is
> > > > gratis.
> > >
> > > Maybe we could say that you pay with your personal data, or with the,
> > > per network effect, power you give to microsoft to organize a social
> > > networking platform that’s very important for finding work, a lot
> > > more than their shitty linkedin
> >
> > Fair enough. But by the same logic, things like Matrix and Signal are
> > not gratis, since by using them, you empower their controlling
> > foundations via the network effect.
>
> Signal is not a lucrative company (yet… who knows, looking at their bad
> faith), but you’re right there, because since they’re centralized and
> depending on proprietary OSes, you indeed grant power by using them. But
> Signal is not so powerful, so it’s not a so big problem, it’s only sad
> given their stated goal, and its ideological proximity with software
> freedom and net decentralization…
>
> Matrix is meant to be decentralized, so network effect shouldn’t apply.
Network effect applies since the more people use it, the more valuable
and useful the network becomes, and the more difficult and inconvenient
it is for everyone to move to another network.
Please note that none of this is a criticism of Signal or Matrix - I'm
just making a reductio ad absurdum argument against the idea that
systems that involve a network effect should not be considered "gratis."
> But maybe your message is a critic of good faith of matrix people and
> their network, because of instability (hence unstandardness) of their
> protocol, asymetry in their gateways (remembering a bit discord…), big
> asymetries in development of their clients, official non-free client, and
> total (wilingful?) blindness about existing implementations such as xmpp
> u.u
As above, I am making no criticism of Matrix or Signal (here, although
I've criticized Signal elsewhere, on other grounds).
> Same can be argued about Twitter, Facebook, etc. One one hand, they’re
> gratis of charges, no money is required to enter, on the other hand “if
> it’s gratis, you are the product”, and indeed these are companies that
> make actual money. Big money, GAFAM are among the richest in the world u.u
> And Twitter is pretty powerful (even and especially politically) after
> all.
>
> > Hey, for that matter, Debian is not gratis, since by using it, we grant
> > considerable power to the DDs, their committees, and the DPL!
>
> No, they’re not submitted to network effect, Debian is not a social
> network. Moreover, Debian is non-lucrative. Currently nobody can get
> *power* from it.
I'm not sure what you mean by non-lucrative, but even though
there's no money involved, that does not mean that there's no power.
The power to decide what software to include in the distribution and
what to exclude is certainly power. Debian has an elaborate
constitution, with all kinds of rules, and the organization has
considerable power over the distribution. This is similar, in my mind,
to the power that an organization like Facebook has over its network.
In theory Facebook users can go somewhere else, but in practice, this
can be quite difficult. Similarly, if I don't like decisions Debian
takes, I'm free to find a different distribution. In practice, this is a
non-trivial step.
Of course, the power of Debian concerns me much less than Facebook's
power, since I am much (vastly) happier with the ideals and transparency
of Debian than that of Facebook.
Again, I am certainly not claiming that Debian and Facebook (for
example) are remotely equivalent institutions. I am merely making the
reductio ad absurdum argument that defining terms like "gratis" as
broadly as some in this thread seem to do implies that Debian's
offerings aren't gratis.
Celejar
Reply to: