[...] help people avoid visiting or linking to things like Facebook, Meetup, Twitter and Doodle? [...]
As well as blocking, does it give the user any encouragement to use
alternatives?
is there a way a plugin could reward people for doing the right thing? Rewards are more effective at bringing about change than criticism.
The anxiety and zeal around the adoption (or failure to adopt Free software) among some programmers in the FS movement is I think a problem worthy of a discussion itself since it seems to resemble the problems with over-protective parenting. In Robin Norwood's 'Women Who Love Too Much' (1985) we see:
'In Praising and encouraging are very close to pushing, and when you do that you are trying again to take control of his life. Think about why you are lauding something he’s done. Is it to help raise his self-esteem? That's manipulation. Is it so he will continue whatever behavior you're praising? That's manipulation. Is it so that he'll know how proud you are of him? That can be burden for him to carry. Let him develop his own pride from his own accomplishments.'
There is, in short a similar potential for culture problems in the FS movement which is about manipulation, control and influence over the lives of computer users.
My complaint then, is what I would describe as the 'FUNDAMENTALISTS COMPLAINT' as in MOZERT V. HAWKINS. Discussions about software freedom don't always result in freedom for the user in the same way that the local school board in Hawkins County, Tennessee in this case ended up being charged with denigrating a families religious views.
This type of complaint in the context of software is that an individuals or corporate's right to develop proprietary software is being 'drowned out' or 'silenced' by all this talk of software freedom.
The argument is advanced by showing how exposure to free software either by blocking non-free, not providing non-free alternatives actually goes against the free exercise of computers users freedom to use proprietary software through denigrating it either from technical, moral, political, social, economic or philosophical perspectives.
It seems timely to issue a reminder that all computer users must be allowed to opt out of Free Software too, to avoid the charge of contradiction or hypocrisy?
Making Free Software mandatory for all and to victimize users who refuse to participate in Free Software is not only contradictory but will only marginalize users we are trying to educate.
Facebook users are not seeking to impose their ideas on the FS movement and generally do not have a problem with FS in principle or in practice.
These objections are at the heart of the Free Software movement and it's important to keep in mind that Free Software will only grow if computer users are exposed to it without being asked to give up proprietary software entirely.
It's astonishing that the possibility of the ideal predicated on the complete annihilation of proprietary software is so prevalent and is misinforming so many FS activists.
It seems to me we should pay attention to the gains we have already made and concentrate on those, and worry less about facebook users and the like and trying to 'convert' them to a particularly disagreeable form of software freedom which is more about computer user manipulation than computer user freedom?
On 18/01/18 11:30, Mat Witts wrote:
[...] help people avoid visiting or linking to things like Facebook, Meetup, Twitter and Doodle? [...]
As well as blocking, does it give the user any encouragement to use
alternatives?
is there a way a plugin could reward people for doing the right thing? Rewards are more effective at bringing about change than criticism.
The anxiety and zeal around the adoption (or failure to adopt Free software) among some programmers in the FS movement is I think a problem worthy of a discussion itself since it seems to resemble the problems with over-protective parenting. In Robin Norwood's 'Women Who Love Too Much' (1985) we see:
'In Praising and encouraging are very close to pushing, and when you do that you are trying again to take control of his life. Think about why you are lauding something he’s done. Is it to help raise his self-esteem? That's manipulation. Is it so he will continue whatever behavior you're praising? That's manipulation. Is it so that he'll know how proud you are of him? That can be burden for him to carry. Let him develop his own pride from his own accomplishments.'
There is, in short a similar potential for culture problems in the FS movement which is about manipulation, control and influence over the lives of computer users.
Every time somebody posts a Doodle link on a mailing list somebody else jumps on them for not using free software.
Many of these people actually want to promote free software but they are making innocent mistakes. They might choose to use a particular plugin because they want to avoid making those mistakes again. A plugin might tell them their email includes a Doodle link before they click "Send".
If people choose to install the plugin and they already agree with the objectives of the plugin, I wouldn't regard that as manipulation.
My complaint then, is what I would describe as the 'FUNDAMENTALISTS COMPLAINT' as in MOZERT V. HAWKINS. Discussions about software freedom don't always result in freedom for the user in the same way that the local school board in Hawkins County, Tennessee in this case ended up being charged with denigrating a families religious views.
This type of complaint in the context of software is that an individuals or corporate's right to develop proprietary software is being 'drowned out' or 'silenced' by all this talk of software freedom.
The argument is advanced by showing how exposure to free software either by blocking non-free, not providing non-free alternatives actually goes against the free exercise of computers users freedom to use proprietary software through denigrating it either from technical, moral, political, social, economic or philosophical perspectives.
It seems timely to issue a reminder that all computer users must be allowed to opt out of Free Software too, to avoid the charge of contradiction or hypocrisy?
Making Free Software mandatory for all and to victimize users who refuse to participate in Free Software is not only contradictory but will only marginalize users we are trying to educate.
Facebook users are not seeking to impose their ideas on the FS movement and generally do not have a problem with FS in principle or in practice.
These objections are at the heart of the Free Software movement and it's important to keep in mind that Free Software will only grow if computer users are exposed to it without being asked to give up proprietary software entirely.
It's astonishing that the possibility of the ideal predicated on the complete annihilation of proprietary software is so prevalent and is misinforming so many FS activists.
It seems to me we should pay attention to the gains we have already made and concentrate on those, and worry less about facebook users and the like and trying to 'convert' them to a particularly disagreeable form of software freedom which is more about computer user manipulation than computer user freedom?
Once again, people would choose to install the plugin. Of course, organizations could make it mandatory for their staff to use the plugin but otherwise people are free to choose the plugins they install.
If people do make the decision they want the help of such a plugin then it is important to make the plugin as useful as possible for them.
Regards,
Daniel
Je 2018-01-18 10:30:47, Mat Witts admin@yuj.it skribis:
This type of complaint in the context of software is that an individuals or corporate's right to develop proprietary software is being 'drowned out' or 'silenced' by all this talk of software freedom.
The argument is advanced by showing how exposure to free software either by blocking non-free, not providing non-free alternatives actually goes against the free exercise of computers users freedom to use proprietary software through denigrating it either from technical, moral, political, social, economic or philosophical perspectives.
It seems timely to issue a reminder that all computer users must be allowed to opt out of Free Software too, to avoid the charge of contradiction or hypocrisy?
Making Free Software mandatory for all and to victimize users who refuse to participate in Free Software is not only contradictory but will only marginalize users we are trying to educate.
I don't find this argument very strong at all. What about a man's rights to hold slaves? What about a man's rights to sell oneself into slavery? I am aware that the comparison isn't 100% apt, but it relies on the same core argument: People having the right to deny others rights and freedoms, and people having the right to waive their rights and freedoms.
If you start treating rights and freedoms as something that can be negotiated individually, the "powerful" will misuse this to transfer the rights of the "weak" over to them.
I'm a staunch individualist, but the individual right to opt out of freedom is not one that I can comprehend or support.
Yours,
Le 18/01/2018 à 12:41, Carmen Bianca Bakker a écrit :
I don't find this argument very strong at all. What about a man's rights to hold slaves? What about a man's rights to sell oneself into slavery? I am aware that the comparison isn't 100% apt, but it relies on the same core argument: People having the right to deny others rights and freedoms, and people having the right to waive their rights and freedoms.
If you start treating rights and freedoms as something that can be negotiated individually, the "powerful" will misuse this to transfer the rights of the "weak" over to them.
I'm a staunch individualist, but the individual right to opt out of freedom is not one that I can comprehend or support.
Yours,
I share this. These are two of the main differences between libre software advocacies(Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond for the first, RMS for the second) and I think it would be hardly solved now and here...
On 18/01/18 13:06, Stephane Ascoet wrote:
These are two of the main differences between libre software advocacies(Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond for the first, RMS for the second) and I think it would be hardly solved now and here..
I think the Torvalds / RMS split is an example of this internal inconsistency playing out, yes.
I suspect though that each person is intelligent enough to see it as an internal contradiction within the FS movement that cannot be resolved dogmatically by either coming down on one side or the other - but ought to be left open for individual activists to work through in their own lives without reference to either luminary.
It seems to me there is not a black and white moral fence that we need to jump over to acheive a fairer society but a moral and functional gradient available, and that ought to be left to individual activists to work out for themselves what is right for them in the conditions they are most concerned about.
For a debian developer, having software that secretly connects to proprietary surveillance / telemetrics would I think be totally unacceptable, but for a 'free', progressive web app games developer, the use of the FB API just for login for example to boost adoption may be acceptable for them, and both ought to be able to identify fully with the FS movement in an egalitarian way.
The point being that the role of the FS activist needs more room to maneuver than is often admitted in forums, and apologists for modest use of proprietary software perhaps ought not to have to contend with the ridicule and moral crusading that comes with more zealous standards in pursuit of an imagined utopia of total proprietary software annihilation when a more modest goal would perhaps be better for computer users, developers and society more generally?
The idea of 'good' and 'bad' here then is problematic because it is a moral judgment being made about software when we know free software can be used to accelerate terrifying consequences and also the reverse is also true - in the case where a discussion about the benefits of free software could easily take place on a proprietary platform like Facebook for example.
The fundamentalist complaint then is about deflating the moral categories of a liberal lifeworld, and turning the critique on those that would use the rhetoric of software freedom to control and manipulate computer users in that way, which is possibly as 'unhelpful' (or if you like - 'reprehensible') as the 'evil' of Facebook and the likes?
If you have ever wondered why people are suspicious of the Free Software message then this would be by wager, that the FS movement hasn't yet reconciled its own internal contradictions on the issue of what software freedom includes (in that it cannot exclude proprietary software on moral grounds, but only through technical measures such as some versions of copyleft) but until it does, not many will want to listen to the messages Torvalds or RMS would prefer they hear?
I don't find this argument very strong at all.
I agree that is is not axiomatic under all conditions, and is only salient in restricted circumstances - for example when FS adviocates attempt to manipulate computer users towards software they believe is better (ie/ free software) or prevent people connecting to proprietary software (eg. like the sort of javascript etc. on Facebook).
My complaint was about the obvious problem of FS advocates seeking to manipulate computer users, albeit in the name of freedom through the use of plugins etc.
The comparison you make I believe is 100% apt in terms of the right for a human person to sell themselves into slavery if they wish, yes.
I think there is an element of this in many work and life contexts - at least in terms of employment contracts and in the social contract where we agree to follow the laws of the state even if we do not agree with them on the grounds that if we don't, we may well be punished.
Where you miss the point I think is that I am not suggesting that people should have the right to deny others rights and freedoms, but rather in pursuing the just cause of software freedom, some activists go to far and inflate this well-intentioned and important work into manipulation of computer users, which is to deny the rights and freedoms of others to connect to Facebook for example.
This is evident through the sorts of technologies discussed in this thread, in preventing people from connecting to proprietary software in an automated fashion.
I say this because I feel strongly if FS advocates give up the moral issue of computer user freedom and software developer freedom in their advocacy, then that is a self-defeating activity.
In contrast to your view, I believe that unless the FS movement treats rights and freedoms as something that MUST be negotiated individually, computer user freedom and free software will be unobtainable for the the individuals who are being manipulated into using software (free or otherwise) that isn't respecting their freedoms as much as is claimed.
I'm not a staunch individualist, because I believe the rights of the human person in some circumstances must fold into what is best for society, especially in areas of public health and education and so forth, and the options of the individual to opt out of freedom is a fundamental prerequisite for both liberal and not-so-liberal education programs everywhere.
Using technological measures to purposely prevent someone to use non-free software, or to connect to sites not friendly to free/libre software, if and only if for the sake of "keeping software freedom" is indeed problematic. This paragraph must not be confused with:
- not recommending a given item;
- recommending another instead;
- refusing to give support/help upon finding out that the involved item is non-free;
- disabling or modifying features that would by default recommend a non-free item.
In free/libre software projects this kind of blockage tend to happen not by purpose (/e.g./: GNU Linux-libre), and so are considered a bug.
2018-01-18T13:13:51+0000 Mat Witts wrote:
I agree that is is not axiomatic under all conditions, and is only salient in restricted circumstances - for example when FS adviocates attempt to manipulate computer users towards software they believe is better (ie/ free software) or prevent people connecting to proprietary software (eg. like the sort of javascript etc. on Facebook).
My complaint was about the obvious problem of FS advocates seeking to manipulate computer users, albeit in the name of freedom through the use of plugins etc.
The comparison you make I believe is 100% apt in terms of the right for a human person to sell themselves into slavery if they wish, yes.
I think there is an element of this in many work and life contexts - at least in terms of employment contracts and in the social contract where we agree to follow the laws of the state even if we do not agree with them on the grounds that if we don't, we may well be punished.
Where you miss the point I think is that I am not suggesting that people should have the right to deny others rights and freedoms, but rather in pursuing the just cause of software freedom, some activists go to far and inflate this well-intentioned and important work into manipulation of computer users, which is to deny the rights and freedoms of others to connect to Facebook for example.
This is evident through the sorts of technologies discussed in this thread, in preventing people from connecting to proprietary software in an automated fashion.
I say this because I feel strongly if FS advocates give up the moral issue of computer user freedom and software developer freedom in their advocacy, then that is a self-defeating activity.
In contrast to your view, I believe that unless the FS movement treats rights and freedoms as something that MUST be negotiated individually, computer user freedom and free software will be unobtainable for the the individuals who are being manipulated into using software (free or otherwise) that isn't respecting their freedoms as much as is claimed.
I'm not a staunch individualist, because I believe the rights of the human person in some circumstances must fold into what is best for society, especially in areas of public health and education and so forth, and the options of the individual to opt out of freedom is a fundamental prerequisite for both liberal and not-so-liberal education programs everywhere.
Hi Carmen,
Carmen Bianca Bakker carmenbianca@fsfe.org writes:
If you start treating rights and freedoms as something that can be negotiated individually, the "powerful" will misuse this to transfer the rights of the "weak" over to them.
I agree, but I see this as an issue with specific implementations. It might be difficult in reality to allow people to waive certain freedoms because you cannot really tell if they were coerced in some form, but when talking about the abstract idea of giving up rights, I think the individual should be allowed to do that.
I'm a staunch individualist, but the individual right to opt out of freedom is not one that I can comprehend or support.
I also cannot comprehend it and I am not sure I can support it in cases where the decision cannot be reversed, but a decision for non-free software can be reversed at any point, so I think anyone is free to decide for non-free software even if I would recomment against it. And just to make this clear: I think writing non-free software is a different question and perhaps should not happen, but I have not completly figured that out for myself yet. :-)
Happy hacking! Florian