Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
In our increasingly politicized world, it has become popular to chant "all software is political." Software builds the systems that free or constrain us, the thinking goes, and so we should withhold it from bad people. This is the thinking that has led Microsoft employees and others to decry contracts tech companies have with ICE (US Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement), insisting that their software only be sold to people they like.
[...] Over the years we as an open source community have experimented with all sorts of stupid ideas, like efforts to block anyone from using code for commercial purposes unless they pay. Each time, we've realized that as good a goal as it is for developers to get paid, for example, the destruction caused by closing off the code to uses we don't like ends up ruining the foundations upon which open source rests.
This is dramatically more important, however, when it comes to attempts to politicize open source software.
As developer Chris Cordle stated, "Nobody wins" and the "whole idea [undergirding open source] dies" ... "if an author arbitrarily picks and chooses who can and can't use it based on whoever Twittersphere is mad at this week." It doesn't matter if there is tremendous cause for that anger. Open source dies when it becomes politicized.
Source: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-politicizing-open-source-is-a-terrible-idea/
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @03:52PM (14 children)
Because someone on Twitter said it, it is now a movement?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 12 2018, @03:58PM (3 children)
Look, if you're a mighty buzzard, you ain't afraid of no strawman, like some lowly crow.
(Also that tweet, far from "chanting" seems to clearly state a coherent point, fairly prosaically for a tweet)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:31PM (1 child)
Are we supposed to know who Ian Henry is?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 12 2018, @08:29PM
What you mean you haven't heard of this person with 300 followers or their tweet with... 2 likes?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 13 2018, @01:41AM
Seems to me it spawned a pretty worthwhile and intelligent discussion. Were you looking for some other result?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:20PM (7 children)
It's been popular for a while to bring politics into open source thanks to the gnome foundation and then mozilla.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:03PM (6 children)
The GPL is exactly this kind of idea. "Do this, or no code for you." IMHO, it's done quite a bit to prevent commercial software from advancing as fast as it otherwise would have. For instance, at my companies, GPL'd code was never allowed to enter the codebase at all; the viral nature of the license was deemed toxic.
The end result was positive in that we ended up owning all our own IP, which was both valuable in a monetary sense and in that we, the people writing the code, ended up with valuable expertise in areas we otherwise would likely not have had; it was negative in that we had to re-invent the wheel (and the axle, and the tire, and the driveshaft, and the brakes, and...)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:37PM (5 children)
So... it's working exactly as intended?
Of course there's nothing wrong with using GPL in commercial code - there's plenty of commercial uses of GPL code (Red Hat for instance) you just can't keep your derivative code proprietary. And yeah, if you're not willing to pay the asking price for the existing codebase then you'll have to invent everything from scratch. Them's the breaks.
Contrast to proprietary code where, in general, you have no access to the source, and no option of making derivative products at all.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday September 12 2018, @07:03PM (4 children)
Of course it is. :)
FTFY. We did very well following this path. Our competitors, however, were unable to benefit from our work, which kept them from using our own efforts to cut our income. That's good when putting food on the table and keeping a roof overhead are priorities. Commercial use has different goals than OS goals. I've written both kinds of software; I'm well aware of the different benefits provided.
In point of fact, the software I give away now is only possible for me to create because during my working career the focus was completely on producing commercial products in a competitive space, a focus that resulted in considerable income and my present ability to do whatever the heck I want to.
No, not at all. We had 100% access to our proprietary code. It was our competitors that didn't have access to it. No only that, but I still own all that IP inasmuch as I either wrote it or paid for all of its development, and now it's being used to make free stuff for others. Isn't that great? :)
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday September 12 2018, @07:23PM (1 child)
>We had 100% access to our proprietary code
Certainly. And you'd have 100% access to your own GPLed code - the GPL does nothing to limit your use of your own code. We're talking about using *other people's* code.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday September 12 2018, @07:37PM
It did nothing to limit the use of our code by our competitors, either, which made it straight-up toxic WRT food and shelter.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday September 13 2018, @12:22AM
Proprietary software is only better for owners. Perhaps you're an owner/coder, or perhaps the coder equivalent of an "uncle Tom"... too closely aligned with your corporate masters. If you're the latter, just realise they'd happily sack you and your coworkers before the next quarter and allow "your" codebase to rot if it made short-term financial "sense". For the rest of us : we're free to work for whichever employer pays the best, often on the same codebase - noone is holding our codebase hostage.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13 2018, @11:30AM
could we have some details about what this amazing, mind-blowing code does?
some people are curious, what kind of super-portable, super-optimized, innovative algorithms the open-source world has lost, by being greedy communists who do not allow innovation from poor, huddled corporations?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:18PM
That's what the NYT would call "a small, but growing number".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 14 2018, @12:25AM
Wellllll, yeah. He was sitting on his porcelain throne when he posted it!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday September 12 2018, @03:56PM (6 children)
If you write the software yourself from scratch, of course you can license it as you like, but if you have this sort of restriction then it is not Free or Open software at all.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:12PM
This. What a strange article.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:15PM (4 children)
Would BSD/MIT/Apache style licenses (open source, free as in beer) allow for such restrictions?
Seems GPL (free as in freedom software) would behave the way you describe, so perhaps this is another good thing about the GPL and its "viral" nature.
Ultimately it is up to the citizens of a democratic government to reign it in. Playing stupid licensing games won't do anything. If Americans, for example, don't like the imperialist and police state nature of the D and R teams, then they must vote for other parties, such as the Libertarians and Greens. Staying home and not voting is not a protest. It's lazy, apathetic silence. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to sit at home on election day and kvetch about "two party system!"
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:37PM (1 child)
Nope, none of the projects operating under BSD derived licenses would accept encumbered code like that. Hell, most consider the GPL too restrictive and replace any GPL code they can with BSD licensed versions.
(Score: 2) by bryan on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:27PM
The BSD 3-Clause No Nuclear License [spdx.org] has caused this issue in the past. The offending line quoted here:
This license does not fit the Free Software [gnu.org] definition because it violates Freedom 0 (The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.)
This license does not fit the Open Source [opensource.org] definition because it violates criteria 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.)
However, this type of license is still referred to as "BSD" and thus causes all sorts of grief.
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:50PM
I think it's not really about the license, it's about the descriptors.
If you discriminate, it is no longer "open source" or "free software" by definition. You can add such terms to another license if you wish, that's not really the issue, it's just that the license then ceases to be something which you can legitimately describe in those terms.
So it's not that you need a new license; what you need is a new way to categorize such licenses. Call it "visible source" perhaps -- anyone can view the code, but it's not fully open. Not that such linguistic games really matter in the end...
(Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:02PM
I think this is what confuses some people, because it depends on what you mean by 'allow' for.
BSD license does 'allow' you to take the code and do whatever you want with it, including closing it. So yes, in a sense, it allows for it.
However, once you do that, your fork is no longer BSD licensed, no longer Free or even open.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @03:59PM
I blame the Internet and the advertising business that supports it.
Outrage = page views = ads viewed (or analytics collected) = advertisers get paid
Damn the whole thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:08PM
they always try the decades-old postmodern depolitization speech. fuck them
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:16PM (41 children)
Bad people: someone with political view I dislike.
So I'll manipulate some organization that I could influence (including possibly open source project) to deny products and services to "bad people".
The first problem is that sword cuts both ways. "bad people" (with differing viewpoints) might do the same to me.
The second problem is it strikes me as the classic fascist knee jerk reaction of using any available sledge hammer to hit your hated opponent. Even if it is merely over a political viewpoint. If I do this, then in some sense it makes me the "bad people". Petty. Vindictive.
Now, there are some "bad people" who really are bad! Like Nazis. Real ones. Carrying flags. Trying to deny them products and services seems like a futile way to react. Better would be education, and prevention of crime, or effective prosecution of it. Things that have a better chance of making a real difference.
Finally, would we want to see political division infect open source projects? Or even corporations? (which are bad enough already driven entirely by short term greed)
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:45PM (21 children)
Problem is the SJWs don't care anymore. They control all the commanding heights of the culture (with the exception of the Presidency, which is what has driven them mad) including the media, the universities and for all intents and purposes the entire tech industry and the vast majority of the Fortune 500 in general now. They think it is time to wield that power to destroy their enemies once and for all in a Final Solution.
The incident that triggered this debate ended badly for the freak who changed the license, but they won't stop trying and eventually they will succeed, exactly like they spent the last year or two mandating a CoC on every open source project to build a base of power to allow these sort of actions. Although again in this case that too backfired as the CoC was used to eject the SJW. The enemy is deep inside the gates now and quickly growing in number. Best to start quietly archiving important software to ride out the Crazy Years.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:27PM (16 children)
You are nuts. Unhinged from reality. Gone round the bend. Back to gabba or whatever with you, begone beast!
(Score: 5, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 12 2018, @07:59PM (5 children)
We should prey for jmorris. He deserves our sympathy, not scorn and revilement. Undoubtedly he is possessed by daemons most foul, probably proprietary.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday September 12 2018, @10:21PM (2 children)
I thought enough people were already trying to prey on jmorris? He just seems to be too nimble for the attempted predator most of the time.
Ok, I'll pray for him.... 'Lord we give thanks for the food which we are about to receive......'
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 13 2018, @12:08AM (1 child)
Not just food, OK?
https://militaryphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/11/for-what-we-are-about-to-receive.html [blogspot.com]
"For what we are about to receive..." might include all manner of things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13 2018, @05:22AM
Divine justice? Swamp drainage? They all result in less of jmorris soooo fine by me!
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Captival on Thursday September 13 2018, @04:13AM (1 child)
jmorris actually believes that politicization of software by rabid Liberal ideologues is a bad thing? He must be destroyed for his own good. Let's call him a Nazi a lot to show him how superior are, then some congratulatory back patting for ourselves because we're so righteous. Meanwhile, we'll send some Antifa goons over to destroy his property and send him a few death threats. That'll teach him for being politically neutral.
(Score: 2, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday September 13 2018, @04:23AM
Now, now, Captival, UID 6(8)66, if that is your real name, no one is suggesting violence toward our fellow Soylentil, jmorris. We love him, so much, indeed, that we are willing to do an intervention in situations like this, where his demons get the better of him. But you, UID 6(8)66, you are not fooling anyone! Number of the Beast? Mephistopheles? Is that you, oh dark one that hides in the cover of libertarian conservatism? Let our Soylentil go! Release your hold on jmorris! Or we will put in a rider on all our software that prohibits its use by any denizen of Hades. Now back were you came from, hellish troll and very bad one at that.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @11:55PM (9 children)
Actually, jmorris is not unhinged. He and I disagree sometimes, but he does have a pretty clear view of reality. It is the muppets like you who are being led around by some pied piper, calling itself "progressive". Note the lack of a gender specific pronoun.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that if/when that piper attains power, it will share that power with people like you?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday September 13 2018, @04:27AM (8 children)
Says the most unhinged member of SN? Seriously? This is just like David Duke swearing up and down (and probably up and down again, it's an alt-right thing, ask Milo) that Richard Spencer is not a racist. Job well done, Runaway! How is it possible for you to be so obtuse? Really, I would like to know. Such profound ignorance does not happen without intent.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 13 2018, @08:57AM (7 children)
Ari, whose doors were hung using strips of cowhide in ancient Greece, feels himself competent to speak about unhinging? Perhaps you would care to revisit AthanasiusKircher's farewell thread again. You are mentioned by name there. Aristarchus' toxicity is legendary!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday September 13 2018, @09:15AM (6 children)
Jealous, Runaway? You are the most toxic, because you have the least to say, being an uneducated American, which if it were not so redundant would be embarrassing. You contribute nothing but vitriol and bile, venom and idiocy, in all your posts. We learn nothing from you, because you have nothing to share, but you are blissfully unaware of that fact. Go back to watching Fox News, and pining for the days when a Clinton was your Governor, or the two times a Clinton was your first Lady. And you best show proper respect, or we will give you the Soylentil equivalent of a Captain's Mast, you scallywag!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 13 2018, @09:40AM (2 children)
Did you say vitriol, bile, venom, and idiocy? Then, you post your hatred of Americans, right here in plain sight, for all to see.
Kinda funny - over time you have claimed to be American, Greek, black, white, and a number of other things. Why, you even claim to be educated!! Nobody knows who or what this Aristarchus personna really is, aside from hateful.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aiwarrior on Thursday September 13 2018, @12:20PM (1 child)
Aristarchus I disagree with Runaway1956 but you are not really bringing any righteousness by calling him uneducated and all sorts of insults. You are in the end, your own worse enemy of your ideas.
jrmorris is known for his opinions. They are not popular around here, and this is the actual good meaningful result here. Rejoyce in that. You starting insults is more or less counter to the point.
@Runaway, jmorris ideas are not the most consistent thing I have read set in ASCII. Supporting him may taint the often good no non-sense attitude that you show which might give you credibility. Unless the no-nonsense attitude has another meaning.
People are irrelevant, they should be free to be what they want. Ideas are what you must judge. This is the actual problem of nowadays political climate. We attack the messengers instead of the messages. This is what is poisonous.
Social orthodoxy like the kind propagated by SJW or other populace moralists, is fascism. Pure and simple!
Disliking a person because he is black or purple or brownish is racism. Pure and simple
A white SJW is as good an idiot as the Goebles loving people, as Serena Williams calling an umpire referee decision sexist (lol wtf?). The common link is the ideas as messages they propagate: They are easily deconstructed.
If people and actual black people would follow Martin Luther King's motto: Judge not by color of their skin but by the content of their character, a lot of bullshit would stop.
1st proposal: If people do not want to volunteer for that open source project, that is fine. They can even maintain their own branch, I do with Open embedded.
2nd proposal: If people do not want businesses to sell that or to that one, do not work there. You are free and (ohh yeah responsible).
3rd proposal: If you do not want businesses to undertake certain lines of work, convince your fellow citizens of it's wrongness and how you can overcome the hardship that may create.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 13 2018, @10:08PM
Thank you, Sir.
Yeah, I realize that supporting some people - uhhh - "looks bad" shall we say. JMorris? Sometimes he goes overboard, and often enough, overstates his case. That's the biggest reason I don't support him more than I do. But, even so, his brand of unpopular is more palatable most of the time, than the popular nonsense thrown around.
Maybe I need to concentrate more on stating my own opinion, and avoid "taking sides", even when one side is obviously so far out in left field as to be out of the ball park. I mean - it's easier to identify with the guy who is still in the ball park, than to identify with the crowd at the custard stand, over in the next town.
MLK. The man would roll over in his grave if he were to hear about BLM and Antifa. I hope no one goes by the grave yard to tell him about current events.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 13 2018, @10:11PM (2 children)
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=27562&page=1&cid=734182#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
Wanted to make sure you saw that. It seems an objective opinion, and one not swaddled in partisan bullshit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday September 13 2018, @11:57PM (1 child)
Yes, I saw it, you vomituous mass of partisan hackery! Did you even read it? You are being lead to far more radical ideas that you actually hold. This is exactly how Trump is leading American to Southern stupidity, racism, and ultimately fascism. It will all be your fault, Runaway.
Now go ahead, complain some more that aristarchus is being mean to you!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 14 2018, @12:24AM
Mean to me? Somehow, I missed that bit of data. The real problem here is that you're posting stupidly vile insults, without any substance at all. Tell me - have you fallen and bumped your head in the past couple of years? Think hard - I can't exactly specify a time at which you "lost it", but apparently, sometime before Hillary's debacle. Maybe you should see your physician? A CAT scan or some such seems to be in order. If you can recover to the point that you can post semi-intelligent, rational insults, we will both enjoy Soylent more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @07:59PM (3 children)
define CoC please
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @09:03PM (1 child)
CoC, Code of Conduct : 1. A coherent list of rules designed to provide an open, caring and non-toxic environment where lack of actual ability doesn't matter, as long as you are not a SWM*. 2. A document designed to give control of a project to SJW's so that you aspies can't hurt our feels anymore.
*SWM : Straight white male. For the purposes of SJW's, sufficient physical disability may also qualify as bent.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @09:48PM
As a SWM I'm here to tell you that you are suffering from a persecution complex. You are either a reactionary dumbass or an asshole who thinks people don't like you because you are a SWM.
I'm sure there are some stupid abuses that have happened, but hey that is life. Shall we label all conservatives "Nazis" just because there are some real Nazi Conservatives? I'm sure you have the urge to say "yeah, that is exactly what you libruhls cucked SJWs do!" at which point I refer you back to the first paragraph where you must decide whether you are a dumbass or an asshole.
Personally I place my bet on all the CoC haters being assholes who are used to getting away with it over the internet and are upset that anyone should dare require civility to be a part of their project. AKA: whiny little man childs.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 13 2018, @12:10AM
One of a pair of very rich brothers, or a former mayor of New York, or possibly a tubular appendage used to impregnate female members of the species.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:24PM (18 children)
This is what we all did since WWII. We didn't outlaw nazism. We let the faithful few espouse it, as we let any other person espouse whatever they want to espouse, because that's how freedom of speech works. As a result, nazis and their spiritual brethren the KKK remained, but slowly, ever so slowly, dwindled to the brink of extinction.
Fast forward to now, when nazis and klansmen have been morphed into the discursive equivalent of Satan, and absolutists have decided that's such a powerful meme that they can use it to demonize a broader set of people and ideas they don't like. So they expanded the discursive boundaries of what comprises a nazi or klansman, and then, since there are necessarily so many more of those around under the new definition, they stridently insist that sterner measures be taken to combat them, because they're a "growing threat."
(Now, a reasonable person might observe that they're a growing threat because the absolutists are the ones who are growing them by expanding the definition, but they are easily shouted down with cries of, "How can you bury your head in the sand?!!" or, "Civilization itself is at stake!!!!" or, "Think of the children! Won't anyone please think of the children!")
The result is that the numbers of real nazis and klansmen are on the rise because when extremists go to extreme measures, others naturally go to the other extremes to oppose them. That suits the absolutists fine, though, because then they can take that as evidence for their writ. It's a deleterious dialectic, with ever tightening and quickening gyres.
Can anyone explain to me how such a thing can not end in actual bloodshed?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by insanumingenium on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:48PM (12 children)
Are the numbers of real nazis and klansmen on the rise? Honestly, I don't know one way or the other, and you seemed to be making a case for the idea that they aren't, only the attention given to them, then had the conclusion that they are genuinely on the rise.
If I knew any nazis I would ask how recruitment is going.
My answer, and I don't hold it as absolute truth, just the best option I know, is that all the "absolutists" should be mocked wherever possible. Reducing nazis to a trope should hopefully reduce the allure as well as the perceived threat. Hogan's Heros made nazis a joke, perhaps they could bring it back.
(Score: 3, Redundant) by VLM on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:49PM (4 children)
Obviously if you redefine mainstream Republican Party beliefs or being of the white race as being Nazi, whereas "in the old days" to be a Nazi you had to be a member of a political party that expired in 1945 on the other side of the planet, oh heck yes the numbers are absolutely exploding.
It also helps if you make no distinction between leftist two minutes hate imaginary media straw dogs, actual historical white nationalism 1.0 from the 80s type people, and modern alt-right thought, whereas in reality none of the three have very much in common.
With a side dish of all politics is a rotating path, and the recently dominant left has run out of useful and valid ideas; naturally all the good idea will come from the right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @08:58PM
Republicans are nearly extinct today, as well. There are only three, really: Trump, Steve Miller, and Newt Gringrinch. All the rest have defected to the Democratic, anti-fascist party. (Always three there are, a Master, and Apprentice, and a Buffon. )
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 12 2018, @09:41PM
Obviously if you redefine mainstream Republican Party beliefs or being of the white race as being Nazi, whereas "in the old days" to be a Nazi you had to be a member of a political party that expired in 1945 on the other side of the planet, oh heck yes the numbers are absolutely exploding.
Hitlery [soylentnews.org]
Hitlery [soylentnews.org]
Hitlery [soylentnews.org]
Hitlery [soylentnews.org]
Hitlery [soylentnews.org]
Got any more victim cards to play? Any kettles you'd like to describe?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @09:55PM (1 child)
VLM, Very Lazy Manchild
Get a grip you wacko, your projection gets old and your ignorance of reality is staggering. "... the recently dominant left"? Democrats have barely had any real dominance and they are no longer liberal really with their attempt to ride the center and get more votes. If the left was truly dominant we would have single payer health care. Instead we got the ACA which conservatives got all angry now that the new administration is chipping away at it, and perversely those same angry conservatives just HATE Obamacare.
You are ignorant scum spreading lies and hate, but don't worry I won't try and abridge your freedoms.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 13 2018, @12:17AM
Dafuq you talking about? There is no "center" in the US. Or, if there is still a center, the D's work overtime trying to destroy it. In our R and D politics, D stands for "divisive" - as in, divide and conquer. The D's rely on identity politics, denying that we are all Americans. In fact, the D's are intent on importing people who are not Americans, for the express purpose of out-voting Americans.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @07:23PM (6 children)
The SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) seems to think they are [splcenter.org].
I think mocking absolutists is counter-productive. It incites them and makes them stronger. It also lulls everyone into the false belief that such extremism "could never happen here." I've long argued that the way Jews lampooned Nazis and reduced them to cartoon cutouts was dangerous, because it glosses over what the Nazis were about and how they came to power in a modern, industrialized, and supposedly enlightened society. (Jews also demonized the Nazis, with the same effect)
I think the best way to answer extremism is to counter it with critical thinking and reason. Don't give them an inch discursively, but don't give into the temptation to de-platform or censor them; that just hands them an easy victory. And, finally, and most importantly, address the underlying causes for people to be angry in the first place--stop rigging the economy and everything else for the connected few, and maybe everyone else will stop wanting to kill them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @09:08PM
Your last sentence implies that the connected few who get all the money are jews. You have been reported to the ADF and will be de-platformed, you anti-semite.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Wednesday September 12 2018, @09:42PM (3 children)
I disagree with the idea that mocking them makes them stronger unless perhaps they are already in control, in which case, sure, we are back to playing into their hand by making ourselves appear to be the foolish ones.
To that point, I don't know of anybody who has ever built a movement on being lampooned. On the contrary there seem to be an entrenched belief that I shouldn't mock some subjects, which I take as evidence of its (potential) effectiveness.
I do agree that sober discussion of how the nazis came to power is hugely educational, but I don't think that mocking stupid beliefs and teaching history are mutually exclusive, rather I hold that both are vital.
I absolutely agree critical thinking and reason are hugely important, and that censorship is a terrible idea. But I am not talking about rational subjects and rational discussion, I am taking about discouraging irrational beliefs in (assumed) sane individuals. I don't think that the best response to a flat earther is to build further evidence against them, but rather to ask them if they used GPS to find their way here. Flat earthers are an excellent example of a group that seems to be purpose built for lampooning, and where rational discourse is of no value, if they actually had an open mind they would see that there is a huge library of proof at all levels that the earth isn't flat. And in the off chance that they are trolls to the man (which is frankly what I am hoping to be true), I got a chuckle, and didn't give them the outrage they desired.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @10:46PM (2 children)
Deplatforming and censorship makes them stronger. Mockery diminishes them to the point where they are no longer taken seriously as a threat. Engagement works but you'll be attacked. [nytimes.com] The far-left and the far-right are feeding off one another, you can't tackle one side without tackling them both.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Wednesday September 12 2018, @10:57PM (1 child)
While we are at it, is there a compelling argument for using the word deplatforming as opposed to just calling a spade a spade and leaving it at censorship?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @11:43PM
Yes because it's a very specific form of censorship. [marcuse.org]
Marcuse knew that falsely attacking conservatives and liberals as "fascists" was what brought actual fascists to power. This scrappy essay was as inexcusable when first written as it remains now, disguising authoritarianism as tolerance and hoping nobody would notice. Marxist in denial [quadrant.org.au] he was not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13 2018, @07:03AM
Ha! As if they could be stronger! No, instead, we seduce their women. Women are much more pragmatic than white supremacists, which is why so few of them manage to procreate, which is kind of an embarrassment, given their ideology. But their women know that Liberals last longer, Blacks are bigger, and Feminist men are much more attentive to female needs in the coitus. So I say, fuck 'em. Well, not fuck them, but fuck their wives, girlfriends, mothers, and aunties. The weakness of white supremacy is that it is an all male movement. You know what I mean?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:24PM
Interesting.
People wanting to fight extremism become extremist.
Maybe the next census could ask: Are you a Nazi?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:35PM
Alternatively, a certain political party started actively courting those folks and did a lot of lying along the way to make them feel like perpetual victims.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:42PM (1 child)
This is what we all did since WWII. We didn't outlaw nazism.
Also, that was AFTER we killed almost all of them....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @10:52PM
Not really [wikipedia.org] although some are belatedly facing justice. [haaretz.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by gawdonblue on Wednesday September 12 2018, @10:24PM
Except if what you said might have been Un-American [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:18PM
Yes they discriminate against people they don't like, but such behavior shouldn't be considered a political tool. Even if their dislike is caused by political disagreement. It's simply not a valid way to achieve consensus on political issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:22PM (2 children)
"All software is political"?
I guess Visual Basic would be crony capitalism. C++ would be a theocratic caste system. Javascript as socialism? Machine code is pure anarchy.
FORTH is still unclassifiable under any kind of classification system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:48PM
FORTH is cyberpunk ... anarchy on amphetamines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @09:51PM
Python is the only real choice for white supremacists.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:25PM (23 children)
We should act in a way that, to the best of our ability, promotes "good" (where I subscribe to a utilitarian model of ethics, but that is a detail). Attempting to exclude bad actors from using my (presumably beneficial) code surely promotes "good".
The (very short) article relies on the premise that Open Source is inherently "good" and slightly not Open Source is inherently "bad" without any justification.
Take a thought experiment:
I have developed a blob of code that drives a centrifuge for making heavy water. The head of Koristan wants to make nuclear bombs to drop on people's heads. Surely it would be evil/wrong/bad for me not to do whatever I can to stop my code from getting to Koristan?
(Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:56PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:58PM (8 children)
Wrong. If people can't use your software to build a puppy mulcher, it is not OSD compatible. Period, full stop. These issues were debated and settled decades ago.
Yes if you know the naughty Elbonians are building a nuke you should act. Do you -really- think they are going to respect a license clause forbidding using your software for WMD production? Yeah, right. Drop a dime to the CIA, that is what you are already being taxed to fund as part of the National Defense. And if they ask you to help, unless it would endanger a lot of innocents, do it. Then when the Elbonians download your software, they will get a 'special edition' that will make the centrifuges fall over and all of their workstations get infected with a virus that makes them order a bunch of busty lesbian porn.
The problem with putting field of use restrictions in is that no larger distribution can touch it. No two packages will have developers flogging the same hobby horse political ideology so any aggregated distribution would have the union set of all of the restrictions, probably with contradictory ones. Not only could no project, not even RedHat, hope to pay enough lawyers to wade through all of the licenses (most written poorly by non-lawyers) but the customers certainly couldn't hope to figure out if they can use it.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:11PM (6 children)
The argument isn't about what the OSD does or does not allow; the argument is whether or not the OSD is some kind of infallible moral compass.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." This idea that one is no longer responsible for the effects of their actions as soon as there's one other person involved in the chain of command is precisely why our world is in the state it is in today. The NSA isn't trying to divorce their production from their politics. Nor is Google or Amazon or Microsoft. If we do, then we give them our code to use against us and we get nothing back in return.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:23PM
Brother, you and I showed up to different arguments.
If you think the best way of fixing evil is to put an exclusion on your open source license than that quote would appear to me to be a harsh condemnation of your stance.
On the contrary, what is perfectly black and white clear is that open source itself is absolutely harmed by your useless and idiotic gesture.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:26PM
The fact that others do evil doesn't mean that we should do evil as well. And denying others their freedoms is, to me, evil. But maybe you don't care about software freedoms. If that is the case, then our goals are simply irreconcilable.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:28PM (3 children)
Software is knowledge, and like science in general works best in the open. Even when governments do science and try to keep it secret, it always comes out in the end. If we couldn't even keep the atom bomb secrets for a decade, with the full intelligence community trying, nothing you write is staying out of "the wrong hands" because of a license clause. Yes science works for bad people too. If you can't deal with the trauma that your creations might be put to uses you don't approve of, you need to find another business to be in.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:05PM (2 children)
...and yet I still can't run a 20 year old game because the source code is locked away and even attempting to get it violates numerous national and international laws and treaties. Some software is like science; but most of it is art. It's not discovering anything new, and it's a product of the time, culture, and technology which created it. There's no reason to think that somebody else is going to perfectly recreate that same software in the future. More likely it will just be lost to time.
Science works best in the open, but the same is not always true of art. Doing art in the open can be a great way to destroy the vision that the art was trying to represent in the first place. Of course, sometimes doing it in the open IS the vision, and that's great, but sometimes those two ideas are in conflict.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:26PM (1 child)
And we are supposed to be the ones object to that bullshit, not adding new rules.
And yeah, games and some art asset type titles aren't science. If we actually stayed within the limits of the Constitution it wouldn't be a terrible problem to allow copyrights for some software. We are now past the historically accepted limit of "perpetuity" with life of the author + 70 and Disney wants corporate copyrights extended past 99 years as well. A flat twenty year copyright would be workable. Even for Hollywood, if Return of the Jedi still hasn't "officially' broke even yet that is on them.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by urza9814 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:42PM
Yes, we're supposed to OBJECT to that bullshit, not sit idly by and allow it to happen.
Most open source advocates aren't the biggest fans of modern copyright law, yet they utilize those very laws in order to build the open source licenses. The GPL is only enforceable through copyright law, yet it's pretty much designed to turn copyright against itself. Personally, I think we should continue to explore this concept of using our opponents' tools against them, as the results so far have been pretty damn good.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:26PM
Some might consider that not a bug, but a feature. Or so I read.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Wednesday September 12 2018, @04:58PM
If you think the head of Koristan is going to be stopped by an open source license I can't see a point in continuing down this track.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:01PM (8 children)
My thoughts exactly.
Feels to me a bit like saying we have to allow a slave market because the sellers have a right to free speech. Sure, they absolutely do, but their speech isn't really relevant to the issue at hand. If I'm writing code that's designed to help people maintain control over their computing devices, why is it so noble to then allow the NSA to use that same code for mass surveillance and other attacks against these same users? Granted, they're likely to do it anyway, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can to discourage that usage...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:30PM (4 children)
It seems mete to me for developers to release their code to the public as OSS, and say, "I send this project out into the world in the hope that it will feed the hungry and cure the sick," but leave it at that. Now, if somebody comes along and uses that code for some other, nefarious purpose, then that's on the user, not on the dev.
Software is a tool, like any other tool.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:13PM (3 children)
Right, it's just a tool, like a table saw.
And when table saws are cutting peoples fingers off, the people designing the things don't just sit back and say "Read the manual; use a finger guard; it's not our fault it's just a tool" -- no, they go and invent technology that detects when the blade touches skin and destroys the blade rather than allowing it to harm someone.
If you know your tool is causing problems, you should do something about it rather than burying your head in the sand and claiming it's none of your business. Take some goddamn responsibility for the shit you create.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 12 2018, @07:38PM
This is a disingenuous comparison. In the table saw example, you enhance the saw with guards for everyone; you don't release a new version of the saw and only sell it to people you like.
In my mind the issue is actually, "Don't write software that can obviously be used for bad, instead of writing software that can obviously be used for bad and then try to limit who can use it."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Wednesday September 12 2018, @09:48PM
Not only is that not why the sawstop was developed, what you would know if you had ever used one, is that the sawstop feature has a disable switch and doesn't stop intentional nefarious usage. Let me guess, you also want to sue gun makers when their tools are misused?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13 2018, @09:28AM
Working on software for metal milling machines (CNC machines). Our software will make the machine cut your entire body in two halves if you go sit in the chamber. It will behead you in no time. Your body will be in pieces if you do so. Don't do this. It's a bad idea, and it's a lot of bloody cleaning up afterwards too. Sure by default the machine wont operate unless the chamber is closed. But some of those millingmachines can fit and mill an entire car and (much much) more (milling motors for shipping industry) . With you in it. And can mill the entire car, including you, into pieces and chips. The machine will not care and its power might not even register the additional resistance caused by your body.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:38PM (2 children)
Slavery "ended[1]", not because of a license agreement but the guns of the British Navy. Expecting dirt world slavers to honor a license agreement is stupid, if you care about ending slavery and human trafficking you support sending men with guns and close air support to help the slavers transition to a "post living state."
[1] Slavery did not, of course, actually end. It probably never will end entirely. It did mostly end within the reach of Naval bombardment but that isn't the same thing. In fact, today in $current_year, there are more slaves than at any previous point in history, although as a percentage they are fewer than the norm.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:07PM
Right, it ended because people stood up and fought for the ideas they believed in, rather than sitting back and deciding that it wasn't their problem and that they should just remain neutral.
A license isn't the only way to do that in software; not even the best way; but it IS one weapon in the arsenal.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:20PM
Parent:
Reality:
There are plenty of slaves to go around. Plenty of law extant with no rational social value whatsoever (many of those laws having to do with unjustifiable interference in personal / consensual choice) to make more slaves, too.
* Google [google.com] puked up the 2013 numbers at the top to a request for the 2018 US prison population.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:23PM
Open source licenses are distribution licenses, the idea that loading a program into RAM represents commercial duplication is one most programmers scoff at. Then you run into the problem of who defines "good". But go ahead, why not start a business and refuse to sell wedding cakes to gay couples?
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:54PM (1 child)
Maybe the answer is that you don't develop that code. Don't be in the business of writing code that can be used to dramatically increase an entity's capability to kill.
Writing killer code for a specific government to use against its enemies might be morally acceptable, if you are the sort of person for whom blind nationalism is good and just. But writing it for consumption by the general public, so that everybody has more killing power? There's only one word for that: evil.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13 2018, @12:06AM
That's a naive approach. Code that drives a centrifuge, as in the example, has many uses for good. Just because it can be used to other ends doesn't make it bad. Most of the tools used to find flaws in networks for the purposes of breaking in, are also used by people to secure networks. Taking away everything sharp and pointy might make you feel safe, but it makes the chef's job pretty hard.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 12 2018, @05:18PM
Other than the sheer naivete of thinking that this could be practically enforced, I see nothing stupid about wishing that people who use my labor and make money from it would share that money with myself and other laborers who contributed to their income.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday September 12 2018, @07:04PM (5 children)
Legitimate question -- is politicizing *anything* a good idea? Are there any things that are automatically 'political' (whatever that means) by their nature?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @08:38PM (2 children)
nothing good comes from engaging in politics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday September 12 2018, @10:24PM (1 child)
Politics is the system by which we get things done without killing each other, paraphrasing Heinlein. (Podkayne of Mars IIRC)
Open source licenses are *already* political. Freedom is politics. How else?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13 2018, @04:59AM
In fact, saying that nothing good comes of politics is just a strategy of the alt-right to forward their extreme rightist positions, whether flat out white male supremacy, or rabid mad-dog libertarianism, as if they were not politics. But, they are. So, there. I am going to ram politics down your fucking throat, you deplorable AC! Stand, and Deliver, you scumfaced son of a Republican Senator! Come back here, you cowardly underside of a dead sheep floating in the storm surge of Florence! Hold still, you cretin of low status and questionable hygiene! Matt Heimbuck died for your sins. Ted Cruz is your fault. ESR is the spawn of your ignorance, and you still do not see it? Oh, how can it be, AC, that you are so "neutral", when everyone, and I do mean "everyone", knows where you will come down. Fucking Nazi. Bruce Perens syncophant!
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Wednesday September 12 2018, @09:00PM (1 child)
I'm gonna say that politicizing a system is bad for the functioning of the system. It causes people to become more aware of the political issues and to expend energy picking a side and advancing that cause, all at the expense of getting work done.
Getting more people fired up about politics is more likely to lead to political change. Which could be good, if one wants change. The problem is that change could be good or it could be bad.
The biggest and best example (but not by ease of understanding) is the stock market. It is a system for making money. Perhaps it had other purposes as well, but these are neglected whenever the primary purpose of making money is in jeopardy. It has been very effective toward this goal. It is also apolitical. People take their pile of money, throw it on, and watch it grow. The vast majority do NOT care where the returns come from. Wars for profit, corporate welfare, austerity, usury, bailouts, cheap labor, doesn't matter. If it generates profits, people invest in it. But this is starting to change. If/when the whole thing comes crashing down, I'm sure that people will argue over whether it happened because of politicization or because of the negative externalities that had been ignored for so long.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2018, @10:37PM
When, not if. Maybe it will morph more gradually so as not to lead to massive death and destruction.
They can argue all they want but politics is just aggregated human opinion on the state of reality so the politicization is driven by the ignored externalizations and vice versa. Back in the day is was politically proper to kill commies and promote unbridled growth at the expense of the environment.