On June 26th ( two days ago ) PewDiePie ( who I believe needs no introduction ) released another video in his liberation saga. This time titled I'm DONE with Google. In this video he goes over his process of getting "de-google-efied", or as he clarifies toward the end of the video, his process of getting rid of his reliance on Big Tech.
The fact that PewDiePie might have a right-leaning following, that he acquired by himself leaning right, which he now exposes to Freedom, using Libre Software, might actually be a good thing. Since exposing yourself to the philosophy of Free Software eventually leads to human rights and thus to the left, in a way. If PewDiePie course-correcting to the left like this, taking his enormous subscriber-base with him, IMO it is very good.
There’s plenty of neo-nazis in the Free Software movement. It’s “Free Software”, not “Free People”
Nazis are everywhere, not just OSS. Never seen one though
Lunduke?
sometimes it feels that there are more cryptofascists in the movement than other ideologies. luke smith is a prime example.
i feel like you missed the time between 1990 and 2005 when american libertarians caused a schism in the free software movement by popularising open source.
You got a problem with open source? In /c/opensource?
i’ve got a problem with what ESR calls open source.
like, the fact that free software is inherently political has been explored elsewhere in the thread, but the term “open source” was started by people who wanted to distance themselves from the free software movement due to them disliking that it was anti-commercial. the open source movement wanted more companies to adopt their code, in contrast to the GNU people trying to stop their work being absorbed into the old big iron.
and they won.
The Free Software movement wasn’t really anti-commercial, they explicitly allow commercial purposes as part of the freedoms to protect, it’s part of the first freedoom they defend, “freedom zero”.
And it’s not like the open source movement wasn’t inherently political either… wanting more companies to join the movement is actually a political position.
But also, it’s not like the Free Software movement didn’t want to have more companies adopt their philosophy… they did want that, I mean that would have been awesome if it had happened. And when possible the FSF has actively tried to convince companies to get on board, they even have run programs to help companies promote themselves as certified by the FSF, such as the “Respects Your Freedom (RYF)” certification.
What makes the Free Software movement different is that they actively see proprietary software as evil. They see freedom as a right, something mandatory, not something to merely be “open” to. Going out of your way to not use closed source software, to the point of crippling yourself digitally if necessary, is then the ethically correct behavior. Whereas the “open source” movement sees it more as an option, something that can be useful but not strictly necessary, they wont consider it inherently bad/evil to use proprietary.
This is akin to someone considering buying ethically sourced shoes as something optional vs considering it a moral obligation so as to not be complicit to evil practices. Or say… saving energy being an option that might be convenient for you personally vs a moral obligation with the planet.
The business model at the time for most commercial projects was based on offering software as a product, not as a service, so they didn’t want to release their code. When eventually the shift towards services started to happen, companies gravitated towards the “open” side because it allowed them to take advantage of free software while retaining proprietary software for those situations in which it benefited them, without being flagged as “evil” by the same community they were working with.
Who won?
the “take our work and pay us nothing, please” crowd.
I think that if your license is MIT then you don’t really understand why free software exist.
i tend to use mit for things i see little value in, and something stronger for things i think may be useful.
but i don’t get to publish much code.
There is evidence already in that video that suggests that he is starting to lean more left. Like he pointed out the ecological issues with AI. Even though he did say “I don’t like to be that guy” before saying that.
It seems like he is already doing some doubts and thinking that are signs of moving the left direction.
I’m trying to be the optimist here. If we want not just PewDiePie, but his subscribe-base to change sides, we need him to be extra careful and extra soft with this sort of change. He seem to know how to form good streams of thoughts and convincing narratives. This would take some serious carefulness on his part. And it seems like he is already taking small steps to do that.
Idk. There’s already plenty of right wingers (libertarians) in FLOSS spaces. I’d hate to see any more.
The problem with this is that it leaves left-leaning people using tech companies and slick, highly-produced products as status items. iphones and macbooks are still solid left-leaning status objects.
Also, the right doesn’t mind being scrappy and using janky, poorly configured crap if it appears to meet their agenda. Nearly every right-leaning social media platform is either a platform with a Mastadon backend, or some early 2000’s style forum.
Didn’t do that for me, still believe in human rights and don’t embrace the left wing. I believe in the freedom to make contracts with people without the government telling you that your profits are too high or whatever the left wing is pushing for
I’m not saying that right means freedom but what makes you think that left means freedom?
Maybe the fact that the left supports improved working rights, unionisation, free education, equality of opportunities and between nations, freer borders for people…
Equality of opportunities for blacks and Latinos means discrimination for Asians. And people here wonder why Trump won votes from people who are not white men
Progressive idealogies espouse freedom for all not simply those with money.
Generally representing freedoms to express any and every religion and not just one.