However, blanket advocation that there is zero value in proprietary software is just plain nuts and bordering on religious zealotry. Life is about balance; extremes are rarely useful - especially long term.
Think about the pervasive data collection you see in many mainstream applications and devices now: smart TVs perform content recognition to try and figure out what you’re watching, VR headsets track much of what you do in VR and report back to the manufacturer, mobile apps look for information that can be used to identify users across apps to aggregate data about their users. Do you think these kinds of things would be so widespread if we were all using free software?
Sure, not everyone is a programmer, but those of us who are could inspect the software and patch out all the tracking code. Even without that, though, I think the additional transparency would make companies less likely to do things like this.
Yes, all proprietary software vendors are stereotypical mustache twirling villains.
This is the kind of overheated rhetoric that causes people to tune out open source advocates.
Also I don't need open source software to see that vendors have tracking code. I also don't have to use their software. I have yet to hook a smart TV up to the internet and have zero intention of ever doing so. A lot of people hook up smart TVs to the Internet because it's the easiest path to get to the Netflix app. You think they are going to swap out the code on their TV even if it was a choice? That's delusional. It would be far easier for them to just plug in an Apple TV if privacy is a top concern - but sadly for most people privacy isn't a concern.
As for VR headsets they are such a niche case, other than us nerds it's not even on the mainstream radar. And once it gets to a point where it is more mainstream there will no doubt be companies like Apple making a big deal about Privacy being a key differentiator for them. So yeah, you might have a quicker path if everything was open source and you had the capability to do it yourself, but open source is hardly the ONLY path to get these results.
I didn't say they were all evil or malicious. I said there is an asymmetric power relationship. This is true whether or not you trust the vendor. You might! But it's good to be aware of it nonetheless, and to think about:
- How much do you trust them?
- Are they incentivized to keep your data safe and private?
- Do you think you'll still be able to trust them 5 years from now?
To varying degrees, the platform owner has a significant say over your use of the platform. It's more pronounced the more locked-down the platform is, but for example: if Apple doesn't want you to run some software on iOS, it's going to be very difficult for you to run that software. If Microsoft decides to push an update to Windows that adds more intrusive telemetry, you have little choice; Windows is going to force an update and you're going to get that telemetry whether you like it or not.
>Also I don't need open source software to see that vendors have tracking code.
You don't necessarily, but it's a hell of a lot easier to tell if you can see the source code.
>You think they are going to swap out the code on their TV even if it was a choice? That's delusional. It would be far easier for them to just plug in an Apple TV if privacy is a top concern - but sadly for most people privacy isn't a concern.
Just looked up the current top-selling TVs on Amazon, this one[0] is currently #1, selling for $130. Adding an Apple TV to the mix ($150 for the base model) would more than double that cost. You, me, and probably most people on this site can easily afford that - but for a lot of people that's a more difficult choice.
Yes, I absolutely believe that some people would replace applications on their TVs with alternatives with less surveillance - possibly many people, if the process were easy.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/TCL-32S325-Inch-720p-Smart/dp/B07G9XZ...
Markets force businesses to act in certain ways. You're making the fallacy of assigning personal malice to normal organizational dynamics. The goal of a good regulatory regime is to have businesses operate in the public good (from a 100,000 foot view).
Yes, if we legalized slavery, we'd have slaves and plantations again. If we legalized arbitrary pollution, businesses would kill the environment. If we got rid of employee safety protections, people would start losing limbs. It's a free market economy. That's what happens. If I produce a product for a buck less than you, I'll stay in business and you won't. That drives low prices and high efficiency, and then regulations constrain that to prevent those from happening.
My own opinion is that anything which isn't open ought to have a 2% sales tax on it. If my microwave ships with source code, mechanical, and electrical schematics, Walmart can sell if for $49. If not, they can sell it for $50. I think that's actually enough to push the economy to where everything which can reasonably be open becomes open. Mice, keyboard, printers -- all the basic stuff.
And the stuff where closed is the secret sauce would stay closed.
However, if they have a programmer friend with relevant experience, they can get the programmer to do it for them. Furthermore, the change can be shared, so all it takes is for one person to do it for everyone to have it-- all it takes is one person for social good.
Furthermore, the argument that software is hard to modify in practice is meaningless, because Free Software might lead to business models and software engineering techniques that empower users more in this way, because granting more practical freedom is better. It's like how some businesses offer APIs
> Life is about balance; extremes are rarely useful - especially long term.
This is the moderation fallacy.
Yeah? Go on...
Without elaboration it sounds like the fallacy fallacy.
Pessimizer pointed out the moderation fallacy. For an argument from fallacy to have happened, he would have needed to use that to invalidate some conclusion from that argument.
Well, you shouldn't commit genocide, but to say you shouldn't kill just a few dozen people? I mean, why be a zealot about this whole murder thing?
The right choice is rarely exactly in the middle. Life isn't about balance. Life is about doing what's best, and sometimes that's in the middle, but more often than not, it's at one extreme or the other.