* Pedro Lucas Porcellis <porcel...@eletrotupi.com> [2020-11-03 06:59]: > And that's why we can't deattach politics from the free software > movement. This may sounds like taking sand to the beach, but it's > something that's been bugging me for a while. Free Software can help on > dealing with those problems, as you can have decentralized software > which respects the four essencial freedoms (like Sourcehut as a Github > replacement, Mastodon/Pleroma as a Twitter alternative, etc)
People tend to do what is familiar to their friends and family and tend to use services that everybody around them uses. To create that effect companies such as Facebook, Github, Amazon, Twitter, they are all paying a lot of money to get users base. That is how it happens that today we speak of "centralization" versus de-centralization. Sourceforge advertised much and they gained so many free software projects. But they also distribute proprietary software. So they make money from proprietary companies mostly. They want people to come to website and take software from their website. They cannot forbid people distributing from other websites, but they bind users to their website. GNU as project does not advertise directly by using those lines as it had got large attention and has been distributed through GNU/Linux OS distributions. So it did not "bind" or "trap" users, it offered people to use software, modify, distribute as they wish. And GNU did not advertise to get large subscribed users' base on their websites as it has different purposes of providing free OS. It has different distribution or communication channels. It is by its method of communication contrary to Sourceforge. Github is open, so far I know, for any kind of software, be it proprietary or free software. They host free software in order to get money from proprietary software hosting. They are advertising and gained large users base. Providing services to large number of users that result in centralization is not necessary a bad thing. Imagine if Github would be GNU, with exclusively free software, that would be excellent platform for improvement of society. GNU would be well known and people would apply more and more to provide free software. Policies would be straight and influence would be great. Until now, probably all proprietary OS-es would be abolished by its users. Those people in last generations receiving proprietary OS-es would be removing it from computers and putting free OS on it with complaints to computer manufacturers as Apple. People would demand free hardware and manufacturers would comply as demand for free hardware would be raising. But Github is not GNU as they have different purposes, they do not care really about free software. They use it only as marketing channel to get paid mostly from hosting of proprietary software. Mastodon, GNU Social, Pleroma or any federated social network can become centralized with a lot of money. Once user base is gained, the network can be centralized. Both Google and Facebook users could communicate back in time through their chat. They have used the XMPP in first time. Facebook user could send email to Google user. Google user could send email to Facebook user. They could chat between networks. People who did not subscribe neither to Google or to Facebook could chat to both of them by using XMPP network. So those large social networks DID start as pretty much federalized networks! If I remember well their pages were also pretty much open, and not closed to non-members. Once they have gained user base they removed email and XMPP possibility. Exactly same thing can take place with Fediverse network. Any company is free to advertise and gain user base, once they gain large user base it becomes familiar to others and your friends and family will be telling you about that website. You will then listen to friends and family and despite having your fediverse account somewhere else, you may sign up for this or other special feature or reason on their network. And so will do millions of others. Sooner or later the company may block the outside Fediverse and centralize its users. Fediverse is now in its good state only because there is no company interested. And it is enough complex or weird that friends and family of geeks are most probably NOT on Fediverse. It is for special type or special group of aware users. I know as I run few instances. When some friend or family calls me to use some chat application or social network, I ask them why? Do they know somebody in that company? Do they know anybody face to face? Why should I trust with my contacts to unknown foreign company? These questions usually work well. Then I give them XMPP account and we are connected. > but if all main datacenters in the world and infra options are on > the US/Europe, then the problem will never be solved. Problem is in corporations with money gaining large users based and not in datacenters or centralization itself. If company would be providing free software messenger and hosting free software servers with the transparent and safe peer to peer encryption, without abusing users' privacy and selling their information, I do not think that centralization itself would be problem there. There is fundamental Internet bait called "get it free" and that was never explained to public until today. Would people be taught from beginning that they should pay for service, there would be less of centralization that we have today. Just as for email services, when people pay for email they are centralized and companies can provide them service without entering into their private lives. If they do not pay for service they have to submit to email searches and PRYSM spying network. > I think that the free software movement, must seek to unity with > radical politics that seeks to strenght national infrastructure (and > therefore improving strategic sectors like tech) which would help to > deal with that kind of shit. There is only free software politics for GNU and no other politics. That is policy of GNU project. No radical politics. No strenghtening of national infrastrucutre. Maybe some other organization, but not GNU. GNU is friendly and welcoming and being apolitical for anything but free software makes it friendly and welcoming regardless of various opinions of people and their political orientations. Sanctions are political, but GNU project regards only free software politics, nothing else. -- There are 41 messages yet in my incoming mailbox. _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss