@whatanerd Yep. And even just within tech, there are multiple obvious examples:
- Cloudflare can now intercept and spy on half the traffic on the internet because they got popular by being a "nice, nerd-friendly" company
- npm Inc., the notoriously irresponsible and unaccountable steward of the npm registry, now part of Microsoft, gained their power over the ecosystem by being a "nice, community-oriented" company
- GitHub, which made the entire FOSS world dependent on a completely proprietary and centralized system by being a "nice, FOSS-friendly" company
- Plus all the many other unethical tech companies and startups that have been trying to lure in nerds and FOSS folks with shiny blog posts to convince them they're "one of them"
- ... and, in fact, Tailscale (which is now on Hachyderm) is doing the exact same thing, rapidly embedding its proprietary system into the infrastructure of many FOSS projects by being a "nice company"

@joepie91 @whatanerd i dont think tailscale is really comparable to the others
their client is open-source, they employ someone to work on an independent open-source server implementation, and there isn't really a network effect like for npm and github

@joepie91 @whatanerd like, im not saying they dont fit into your overall point, just seems a bit weird to put them on the same ground as the others you listed

@leo @whatanerd That doesn't really change my concerns, though. The *core service* is proprietary, as is their infrastructure, which is the actual thing that constitutes their company. A separate open-source server implementation is a side project, one that may be axed at any moment, that doesn't necessarily have the same featureset, and so on.

*All* of the companies I've mentioned had similar things. High-profile FOSS projects meant to demonstrate that they were "a friend of the open-source community", except they actually weren't, and it was just marketing.

In fact, npm was at one point even entirely open-source! But later closed up their registry implementation.

Ultimately, it is about power dynamics. The exact shape of those power dynamics varies from company to company, but "for the 'real first-party' experience you are dependent on Tailscale the company and their proprietary system" is absolutely one such power imbalance.

And ultimately, no company will do *exactly* the same thing as the ones that came before it. It's never exactly identical, it's always "different". That makes it all the more important to recognize the underlying *patterns* instead.

@leo @whatanerd (Also: the reason they seem out-of-place in this list is because they're being listed at the *start* of their marketing process instead of at the end, when all the consequences have already played out, like for the others. They're included specifically because of the conversation about Hachyderm right now.)

@joepie91 @whatanerd i mean, i'm not disagreeing with your overall point, i just think the lack of network effect means that github and npm are on very different footing than tailscale and arguably cloudflare

@leo @whatanerd That I can agree with. But I also don't feel that the *exact* failure mode is terribly relevant for whether we should want to avoid it...

@joepie91 @leo @whatanerd
>except they actually weren't, and it was just marketing.

Being friends of OSS could even be the former intention of beings who are in charge, which makes the whole corporation world even scarier. Good intentions get twisted by need to be profitable.

In threads about corporations on Fedi, I see lot of posts about "There are good beings in there". No one is questioning that. I for example like what those working at Oxide computer do, and if I had to decide where to go next, working with them would be amazing.

But corporation itself is a separate entity from those who work there. Entity with its own motives that sometimes align, but only as long as it pays off.

@smhoekstra While there are quite a few issues with the concept of "psychopathy" itself, there are pretty strong arguments for companies (in the for-profit sense) being *fundamentally* like that, even.

As in, their entire purpose, their reason for existence, is to function that way where people couldn't/wouldn't get away with that. As a sort of unaccountable decisionmaking machine.

Likewise, capitalism is a fundamentally hierarchical system, for-profit companies are fundamentally designed to be capitalist, and therefore they are fundamentally strongly hierarchical - they *have* to be to fit into that ideology.

That's also why I'm arguing that companies can never be genuine community participants. Their primary priority is always, by design, to act selfishly.

@joepie91
I agree with you in the most part, but think that’s more applicable to bigger corporations and less applicable to small businesses.
But I agree that the profit drive for corporations is so much misaligned with community objectives that they should not be allowed to lobby in politics.

@smhoekstra I'd argue that the problem is fundamental to companies of *any* size - just, like in any hierarchy, the ones lower in the hierarchy are not *yet* at a point where they can actually exert their power. But they are certainly vying for it, and it doesn't mean that they can't do a lesser amount of damage in the meantime.

Every big company started as a small company at some point. The problem is structural to the concept of a company itself.

@smhoekstra If I'm being completely honest, I don't think a useful further discussion is possible here at all if you immediately frame it as "corporations vs. communism".

That's an extremely simplified "party politics" view that leaves no space for analysis of power dynamics and structural/systemic problems in and of themselves. It steamrolls any deeper understanding.

@joepie91
Sven, no framing was intended. Only clarification on my own views.
From your response I couldn’t distill what path to improvement you think is possible, so I elaborated on my views and honestly asked for yours.

@smhoekstra The framing may not have been *intended*, but it was certainly there. I never said anything about communism, there was no reason to bring it into the conversation.

"Anything not capitalist is communist" is propaganda that is meant to dissuade criticism of capitalism, by painting anyone trying to *make* such criticism as an "undesirable" or "naive, not to be taken seriously".

I'm just not interested in engaging in any discussion on that premise. I have no reason to believe that anything I say will be taken seriously, and treated in any way other than patronizingly.

If that's not what you meant, then if you can clarify what you *did* mean (and provide a concrete point of disagreement or request of clarification about what I've explained earlier), I'd be happy to reevaluate. But as it stands, this just doesn't look like a discussion that's going to be productive.

@smhoekstra I'm also Dutch. It is just as much unconstructive propaganda that kills any useful discussion here, as it is anywhere else, and we very much have a "capitalist propaganda" problem here as well.

@smhoekstra @joepie91 > utilizing resources in the most optimal way

That's quite an illusion though. It's always optimizing for profit, there is no other incentive. If it's profitable to optimize for something else, it can temporarily align with that goal, but the ultimate target of every company is to make money.
Planned obsolescence is quite a good example of that.