[flagged]
If we were to accept and enforce this rule, billions of followers of some major religions would not be eligible to be part of a free and open society.
The actual power-wielder who regulates these things is a government (or rather its justice system), a warlord, nowadays maybe an AGI, but definitely not society and not "We, users of orange social media". These mechanisms work for thousands of years, paradoxes gonna paradox.
He's right that freedom requires restriction. The problem with the paradox of tolerance is that it masquerades as a meaningful principle while leaving the actual restrictions unnamed.
P.S. it also is worth noting that, to the extent that the GPL works, it's precisely because it doesn't rely on vague principles. It's specific about what's restricted, when, and how.
If there is anything prescriptive to it, it's the implication that no principles will ever suffice. In which case you need to find a way to reframe the problem.
It's of course not a perfect analogy since the original Free Software still exists, but since in practice the dependency was from free towards non-free, like in this instance, it still works. Google and its anti-freedom practices are still in effective control of the Android ecosystem even though it's still technically free by way of AOSP.
And just as how some people argue that intolerance of the intolerant by a tolerant society is bad, so do some people argue that things like the GPL is bad because it prevents downstream modifications etc. going from free to non-free. Maybe this will help re-evaluate the culture around this stuff.
I’ve always thought this was hand wavy nonsense. Tolerance and tolerating is so ill defined in these discussions that they end up pointless.
I’m also not sure game theory supports that intolerance wins out if you view it as repeated instances of the prisoner’s dilemma.
What you describe sounds like the paradox of intolerance but I fail to see how that can be applied to free software.
Freedom in general: You can't have absolute freedom because that includes the freedom to take the freedom from others.
In software: You can't have absolutely free software because ... ? I fail to see how free software might infringe on the freedom of others.
If you MIT license a critical piece of software instead of GPL it, what happens is someone will have a business idea on top of it. They implement their idea, then close source the new implementation.
They then bring in revenue. That revenue then enables them to amplify and accelerate their modifications. Eventually, they start patenting and commodifying their changes. More resources accelerate their closed-source implementation that quickly obsoletes the open source implementation.
Now, people are forced to use the closed source implementation or be left behind with an inferior tech. Because these things tend to optimize or otherwise accelerate them, they have no choice but to pay or trust this closed source implementation, and that creates a feedback loop.
They get more resources, build more closed source stuff, and rarely contribute back to the open backbone that enabled them to begin with.
You an extrapolate the pattern from here.
I've been ridiculed all my life for speaking my truth, even when it is difficult or harmful to me.
It's okay.
People are not stupid.
People aren't stupid, but the fact that Google is in this situation proves that we should have been less naive.
Best example of how the communist/fascist/liberal democracy triad completely falls is looking at China, which has facets of all three and none at the same time.
This makes it difficult nigh on impossible to have a real political discussion, as they fail to amount to more than connotative terms to be applied to outgroups, and do not map to political reality in any meaningful sense. Anyone can turn into the fuzzy outline of a nazi if you squint really hard.
Nuances needed to make any sort of sense of 21st century politics, especially its newer entries, are the tensions between cosmopolitarianism vs communitarianism and technocracy vs populism.
The problem with using such an outdated political map is that many of our contemporary problems are missing from it, and go unresolved until enough frustration builds that there is an ill-conceived popular upheaval that forces the issue. Rather than addressing the technocratic European Union's lack of accountability to its citizens, we get Brexit instead, which could likely have been avoided if the political map wasn't so out of touch.
Which becomes self-reinforcing: attempting to save yourself is perceived by the other as oppression.
I don't mean to simply blame all sides here. Facts on the ground do exist.I think I can justify how some players are worse than others, and that there might be a way out of the vicious cycle when some individuals say "no, that assertion no longer seems reasonable."
But given that it's gotten monotonically worse for decades, I don't see that happening any time soon.
I'm pretty sure they're not the same.
There are plenty of stupid people around.
We interact with them every day.
American education isn't great, but it's not radically worse than many other rich nations. The difference doesn't seem sufficient to justify the extreme separation of ideologies. (That is, I'm not arguing in favor of one or the other, but the level of hatred between the two implies that at least one is wildly off base.)
Most people, might not be 'stupid'; but complacency in the population is enough to drop the guard down.
In the case of the nazis, the population might even support them.
You can see it again and again in the success of voter suppression acts and the deceitful tactics played by authoritarians.
Arguments only work when both actors respect good arguments.