Hacker News Reader

> The focus on freedom is too narrow

I think we need more resolution when discussing that part, too.

To me, the main difference between Free Software and Open Source camps is whose freedom they're fighting for. Free Software was always primarily about the freedom of the end users, while Open Source was about the freedom of the developer. That's why OS developers prefer permissive licenses - it's about granting themselves more power, making their lives easier. Free Software requires an ideology buy-in because if you advocate for more software being GPLed, you're making your life as a developer more difficult - you're really fighting for the freedom for your users.

Ironically, and in complete opposition to the author of the discussed article, I used to be strongly in OS camp when I first started programming. I had dreams of selling games, and dealing with GPL dependencies was annoying. But over the years, I learned to appreciate the insight of FSF and pretty much prophetic writings of Stallman, and now I find my beliefs being increasingly aligned with those of FSF. Open Source of today is a paradise for developers, but it mostly serves companies that abuse the end users.

>> When I want to stop using something, but I can't, that's power someone holds over me.

To take that power back means you have to do things yourself, and that means manage your own data. Unfortunately that is too much to ask of the general public, at least with the free tools available today.

People are trading power for convenience, in part because most people don't have the power (know-how and/or time) in the first place.

I don't think it's too much to ask of the general public.

Think of WordPress -- free software you can either run yourself or pay a company to run for you. If you don't like a particular hosting company, you can click a button to export your data, and upload it with a new host -- or with other software that understands the WordPress export format. All of this data handling is manageable by most non-technical people. The process is hardly any different than downloading an email attachment and sending it to someone else, or uploading it somewhere.

It seems to me the biggest problem is either data not being exportable from these services, or the exported data not being machine-readable. If the format is machine-readable, developers can create alternative software that works with it; managed services can then develop around that software; everyday consumers can eventually end up with more choice, freedom, and power.

> at least with the free tools available today.

This problem is potentially solvable by creating better tools that allow people to have control over their data and still gain the benefits and convenience of the closed functionality on offer today.

Or perhaps the solution, at least in some cases, is at the protocol / standards level -- email is my favorite example of this.

The question is, in the general case, whether development of the tools that are designed to give users all of the power can keep up with that of closed tools managed by for-profit companies? It seems difficult to compete with products that are produced by the likes of FAANG.

Important clarification: this is not about profit vs not-for-profit. It's about control, flexibility, and lock-in.

I agree that, to really think about this problem, you need to keep zooming out. But I also know that programmers tend to reach for abstractions quite often, and you can go up and up and up that chain. I was trying to stay at this one specific level, and not zoom out too far :) Thanks for a great comment.

Everything in life is just groups of key/value tags, man.

Good point - sorry if my comment was a derail!

Not at all! That’s why these kinds of spaces to exist, to expand on the ideas presented in the link. And my goal here is to facilitate more conversion, so this is exactly what I wanted :)

What you really want is data formats and import/export functions across applications.

We've been over this with Microsoft Word making its format difficult to convert - stifling competition.

All these internet giants don't even have a file format for you to try and convert! Brilliant on their part.

Once you have your friend-list and stuff-you-posted as json, go ahead and switch to a different application - it'll be a 2 click import and you're set.

Regarding search and gmail - I fail to see how they have any hold over you, just use duckduckgo and one of the many other email service providers.

> We need choice, but also connection.

The "distributed web/internet" is probably going to be part of the answer, but that ultimately hits up against the ISP and data transport layer.

Part of that can be (in theory) worked around via free "mesh networking" - but that too runs into the ISP (well, backbone) for long-haul traffic.

That could be (in theory) worked around at a country level; I could imagine very wealthy people supporting such open and free mesh networking, and providing free long haul transport networking in some manner. That's probably all a fantasy though - the reality is that there aren't any good solutions for mesh networking between distant points at the moment (hmm - with enough nodes, vehicle-to-vehicle mesh could be a possibility).

Not sure what the real solution is...

The implementation of Multicasting (it's in GNUnet roadmap) can quickly make the mesh more efficient. In cities, wifi devices can start working together and manage bandwidth in a better way. Then a program can signal that, for example, 4 different wifis with GNUnet cover the same physical location. Somebody (network analyst hobbyist) could write to them and offer them to get a communal wifi that uses GNUnet superior performance while saving a lot on ISP services.

ISPs in many countries by law don't have the power to exclude things they don't like and competition prevents other abuses. If there are no laws like that in your country and not enough competition, you can zoom out to the problem of capitalism with incentives to gain monopoly and capture regulatory agencies. With such problem mesh networks are going to be monopolized in exactly the same way, because somebody has to maintain them to make it work well and with enough usefulness people would rather pay a subscription fee for a working service than rely on unreliable volunteers, and capitalists would rather buy everyone who offers the service early on than let competitive market happen and we are back to square one.

What I'm trying to say is that if mesh network is a solution, you have a much bigger problem than you realize.

> When I want to stop using something, but I can't, that's power someone holds over me. In my case, that's Google search, GMail, and Android.

What's the issue with Search? I see how Gmail and Android can lock you in, but Search? You just have to type a different address.

It's a different mechanism with the same outcome. If the scale of a solution is so immense that only one or two of the largest corporations in the world can realisitically implement it, then you've got a duopoly and all the bad power imbalances that come with it.

Which is part of why I think freedom is the wrong goal. You're free to choose between Kodos and Kang, but the ability to choose conveys no power.

I think you're seriously overrating Google Search. Try DuckDuckGo or Startpage.com. They give you at least the exact same results as Google, and in many cases actually better, more up-to-date, or more fitting/filtered ones (except that Google image search seems consistently better, however). After all, these crawl the same web that Google is crawling, and there just isn't that much really new stuff out there these days.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a big fan of DDG. It is my default search engine everywhere, and I go so far as to actively delete Google wherever I can.

But no, it's not the same. DDG uses Google on the backend, to populate their data. And that means there is a time delay between when Google gets the data and when DDG gets the data.

And sometimes you do want the personalization that Google brings to the table, to help you find the answers you're looking for faster. Precisely because DDG doesn't have much information about you, that means their search function won't be able to be as personalized.

DDG is fine as a primary default search engine, but as it stands, you still need to have Google around to provide the data and to provide a backup search engine in case DDG doesn't cut the mustard.

I don't believe you're correct. DDG doesn't use Google Search, and Google wouldn't be ok with them doing that - it only has an option to redirect to Google Search using !g. I have numerous cases where Google Search lately just doesn't cut it, and DDG's results are actually better and more up-to-date. Whereas with Startpage.com, you at least get actual results, rather than useless "108912398 matches retrieved in 0.000001 ms" type crap results for shovelling ads in your face.

For important recherche-type searches, I always perform an additional Google Search, but then again, the links Google gives you are personalized results which gets in the way of neutral recherche.

Actually, DDG seems to me like it matches yandex results more closely than Google's.

This is related to my comment on the Iron Cage article.

I think that public decentralized protocols and platforms can provide a base level of holism without being controlled by individual monopoly technology companies.