> Surely, they (or any reasonable person, for that matter) don't > think that sugar is beneficial for children
I think that most people know that sugar is not particularly healthy and would not advise consuming it to excess. However, I think that most of them do not realize that it is more toxic than that, that it is addictive in a literal sense, or that a massive industry uses it to exploit people. You are right that it is similar to malicious computer interfaces in this way, and that it is an ironic name for the project. However, > from a ideological point of view (despite their stated aims), > in my opinion, is flawed. I think this is an overstatement. I don't know why they chose the name Sugar, but as far as I know it has nothing to do with advocating the consumption of sugar. A poorly chosen name does not undermine the value of their work. I'm glad to see someone reflecting on what makes a healthy interface. I am concerned that Replicant, Diaspora, and other free replacements for addictive proprietary software unintentionally implement some of the same addictive antifeatures in trying to recreate the functionality of the software they replace. Freedom 3 allows these antifeatures to be removed, but the first step in removing them is identifying them, and this is often nontrivial.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
