Follow

long, browser musings 

@freakazoid It's the same answer as for anything else; find the weaknesses in the system, the points that you have a natural advantage on, and use those to sabotage those dynamics.

This is why it's so important to adapt the existing things and not only create new things; there needs to be a path forward for people who *aren't* willing to restructure their entire lives for a - what is to most people very abstract - cause.

That's going to be hard work, for sure, but there are no easier solutions.

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we adopt "providing access to business and learning big tech" as a goal; that's precisely the thing we're trying to get rid of. But that's a different question from "should we support the breadth of functionality that people have come to expect"; people have their own needs *separate from* those of businesses, that *also* cannot be supported by a stripped-down model.

Summarized, the intention is to accept and recognize the needs of individuals, but not those of corporations. That means rejecting some concepts, and accepting some others that we might personally dislike. It's a case-by-case consideration, but "minimalism" should not be the overarching goal, "meeting needs in a consensual and respectful way" should be.

(As for 'free software' vs. 'open-source'; that story is rather a bit more complex than how you've described it. The two ideologies are almost indistinguishable in practice, and "open-source" likewise has a lot of ideological history behind it beyond just "big tech". Neither ideology is remotely sufficient, and free software absolutely is not free of blame here either.)

· · Web · 0 · 1 · 3
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Pixietown

Small server part of the pixie.town infrastructure. Registration is closed.