HyperWiki

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
en:philosophy:logic_failures [2023/11/22 20:53]
throgh [Free software and its current logic failures] 		en:philosophy:logic_failures [2026/05/27 04:45] (current)
throgh [Free software and its current logic failures]
Line 3: Line 3:
 Within this article we want to describe the logic failures many projects from the sphere of free and libre software are following and especially why Hyperbola do not and will not include or even mention further projects. Aside of we do not include a list of projects as this article is meant as generic description of fallacies. Within this article we want to describe the logic failures many projects from the sphere of free and libre software are following and especially why Hyperbola do not and will not include or even mention further projects. Aside of we do not include a list of projects as this article is meant as generic description of fallacies.
  
-First of all we will use the idiom **freedom is not self-evident** as figurative meaning and expression also within this article. Therefore we want also to underline as others that free, libre software and culture is in a shape of crisis. We do not intend to get this mentioned idiom into misconception also. The conception of **freedom** as ultimate ratio for democratic participation and expression for every individual being is coming with a responsibility: Democracy and freedom are not some self-evident things, not coming also for everyone as "individual advantage". They are not responsible to make anything better individual, they are meant to be for everyone the same and we as global society have to work for so they can be kept for the future. Democracy and freedom are meant for making the whole social living better, meant to grant participation and rights for every being, not only for some or some advantages likewise people think. Freedom is not self-evident, we have to work on and for it daily, inclusive as democrats and not as ignorant individuals!+First of all we will use the idiom "freedom is obviously not to be seen granted and given" as figurative meaning and expression also within this article. We also do not recognize "common sense" with the wording "obvious" as **freedom** can be defined throughout successive approximation and therefore scientific accuray, not with appealing some "common beliefs" or - as we underline here - myths people just accept as given. Therefore we underline that free, libre software and culture is in a shape of crisis. We do not intend to get this mentioned idiom into misconception also. The conception of **freedom** as ultimate ratio for democratic participation and expression for every individual being is coming with a responsibility: Democracy and freedom are not some obvious things always existing, not coming also for everyone as "individual advantage". They are not responsible to make anything better individual, they are meant to be for everyone the same and we as global society have to work for so they can be kept for the future. Democracy and freedom are meant for making the whole social living better, meant to grant participation and rights for every being, not only for some or some advantages likewise people think. We have to work on and for it daily, inclusive as democrats and not as ignorant individuals! 
 + 
 +**But what is this "freedom"?** 
 + 
 +The wording is seen for every individual different, sidewise when reading this article. We refer to "freedom" most time with the **[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#The_Four_Essential_Freedoms_of_Free_Software|four freedoms]]** defined for the "free, libre software"-movement. So to underline: When we stop evaluation of freedom, of critical points giving risks, we do not only endanger ourselves and question therefore elementary rights every being deserves. Democratic values are vanishing, when we stop asking questions, stop debating, when we only agree with darkness surrounding us as this is the logic fallacy following up when no questions are asked, information, facts and science are turned into false beliefs and myths. We need to learn, same as we need curiosity and therefore also each other to follow approvals of each other in critical perspectives. 
 + 
 +<note important>**Freedom** and **democracy** are not just words coming by default into existence. If we really want to value them, we also need to do work to fulfill their meaning. Same alike free software itself as part of: If we want to value free software, we need to engage with and in it. Not just to think free software coming by default into existence, because some people are doing willingly work for others and do not need anything in return. Altruism is part of free software surely, but to value **freedom** and therefore free software, we need also engage on many ways. And in the same way we also need to engage in **democracy**, as it is not there for our own advantage. If we want both to persist, free software to persist, we have to rethink our stance daily.</note>
 ===== About free, libre culture and software ===== ===== About free, libre culture and software =====
  
Line 30: Line 36:
 Nevertheless it is not fair to blame the founders of free, libre software for having their movement hijacked. They were facing difficult odds: The neoliberal consensus of the last few decades has meant that the benefits of technological development have largely flowed to corporations, under the aegis of a strong intellectual property regime. As the "free, libre software"-movement came up against these prevailing economic forces, its more contentious aspects were watered down or discarded. The result was “open source”, a more collaborative method of writing software that bore few traces of its subversive origins. This is a shame, because free, libre software had the potential to be so much more. The movement arose out of the desire to decommodify data, to contest the idea of treating information as "property" and asking direct the sense behind "intellectual property of digital data". Of course, the movement’s ability to fulfill this desire was hampered by a lack of political analysis and historical context. **We need to remember that everything is political, driven within a political, ideological context. Nothing is without!** Nevertheless it is not fair to blame the founders of free, libre software for having their movement hijacked. They were facing difficult odds: The neoliberal consensus of the last few decades has meant that the benefits of technological development have largely flowed to corporations, under the aegis of a strong intellectual property regime. As the "free, libre software"-movement came up against these prevailing economic forces, its more contentious aspects were watered down or discarded. The result was “open source”, a more collaborative method of writing software that bore few traces of its subversive origins. This is a shame, because free, libre software had the potential to be so much more. The movement arose out of the desire to decommodify data, to contest the idea of treating information as "property" and asking direct the sense behind "intellectual property of digital data". Of course, the movement’s ability to fulfill this desire was hampered by a lack of political analysis and historical context. **We need to remember that everything is political, driven within a political, ideological context. Nothing is without!**
  
-But that's one side of the even bigger picture: Free, libre software is also often further misued and mistreated as "ultimate errata for misguided data-usage". The solution against surveillance, may it be from states, from organizations, companies or others. That's also a wrong perspective same way as before for misguided and shortened argumentation for or against capitalism. The conclusion is always included within further buzzwords like VPN, cryptography, cryptocurrency and more. Those are no solutions, especially when talking about social issues, as those cannot be solved with technical progression and further tools. That only results in circumvention and generation of even more problems. Speaking of: We need to face the facts that social issues are most complex and not only possible to solve with more technical approaches.+But that's one side of the even bigger picture: Free, libre software is also often further misued and mistreated as "ultimate errata for misguided data-usage". The solution against surveillance, may it be from states, from organizations, companies or individuals. That's also a wrong perspective same way as before for misguided and shortened argumentation for or against capitalism. The conclusion is always included within further buzzwords like VPN, cryptography, cryptocurrency and more. Those are no solutions, especially when talking about social issues, as those cannot be solved with technical progression and further tools. That only results in circumvention and generation of even more problems. Speaking of: We need to face the facts that social issues are most complex and not only possible to solve with more technical approaches. Also a further danger for free, libre software is also the growing perspective of people to see everything as just some "joke" and the misusage grows within this as people with more technical knowledge only use it for empowering themself instead of empowering others. Leading in the end to even more fallacies as power comes sidewise also out of knowledge. Harassing people in a weaker position or make jokes out of them? But this is reality nowadays with participants pretending to be interested in free, libre software and just keep engaged people busy for another amusement.
  
 Hyperbola as project does not speak up against VPN or cryptography: In fact Hyperbola is based on the basic idea that everyone has a right of privacy and security. But we speak against their misusage as toolsets for paranoia. Critical thinking is always needed and critical questions same way. To state after all: Do we really want to have free, libre culture and software being that kind of misused? Social and economical that mistreated and misguided, so the once good meant intentions do not longer count? As society we need to come back to rational explanations: People make software for people, not for companies, not for corporations. The best protection is having the person in front of the computers having the possibility for emancipation and education, for science and not for some hearsay. Based on this we can also decline projects with a clear reasoning, not with something we have once read or heard somewhere alike. Hyperbola as project does not speak up against VPN or cryptography: In fact Hyperbola is based on the basic idea that everyone has a right of privacy and security. But we speak against their misusage as toolsets for paranoia. Critical thinking is always needed and critical questions same way. To state after all: Do we really want to have free, libre culture and software being that kind of misused? Social and economical that mistreated and misguided, so the once good meant intentions do not longer count? As society we need to come back to rational explanations: People make software for people, not for companies, not for corporations. The best protection is having the person in front of the computers having the possibility for emancipation and education, for science and not for some hearsay. Based on this we can also decline projects with a clear reasoning, not with something we have once read or heard somewhere alike.
  
-Free, libre software-projects should go against the trend of even more data-consumption, for having even more dependencies with questionable backgrounds. Yes, most of them all around free, permissive licensed. But in the end treated only as corporate inclusion-ground and having people working "for free" on a "so-called open-licensed project". In the outcome this is only misused as "cheap and easy workforce". The "free, libre software"-movement tended to approach the issue of property rights within a capitalist framework from an individualized perspective, drawn from the 1970s-1980s hacker culture that many of them came from: If you could change how enough hackers wrote and used software, you could change the world. This highly personalized model of social change proposed an individual solution to a structural problem, which necessarily neglected the wider social context. **In the end it was ignored also that a system cannot be changed from within, only outside with a complete different paradigm.** So let's summarize: While "free, libre software" as movement has its own original roots, the wording "open-source" was only generated for a comfort-zone and it is fraud in all places.+Free, libre software-projects should go against the trend of even more data-consumption, for having even more dependencies with questionable backgrounds. Yes, most of them all around free, permissive licensed. But in the end treated only as corporate inclusion-ground and having people working "for free" on a "so-called open-licensed project". In the outcome this is only misused as "cheap and easy workforce". The "free, libre software"-movement tended to approach the issue of property rights within a capitalist framework from an individualized perspective, drawn from the 1970s-1980s hacker culture that many of them came from: If you could change how enough hackers wrote and used software, you could change the world. This highly personalized model of social change proposed an individual solution to a structural problem, which necessarily neglected the wider social context. **In the end it was ignored also that a system cannot be changed from within, only outside with a complete different paradigm.** So let's summarize up to this point: While "free, libre software" as movement has its own original roots, the wording "open-source" was only generated for a comfort-zone and it is fraud in all places. 
 + 
 +We should also not forget one special element: **The wording FREE within free, libre software.** As this is another illusionary statement, this also demonstrates further failures. So let's take first the point of the wording itself: It is most the time stated that "free does not mean free as in free beer, but freedom itself". This sentence itself has a concrete meaning: Free does not mean "gratis" while the software itself is nevertheless offered for everyone to access, modify and share without any further boundaries and restrictions. The meaning of the before mentioned sentence is the relation towards the responsibility of every user: When I like the software, when I use it, I should either help funding it or support its further development with my time and doing. We should be honest to ourselves and recognize that developers also need money to act and do what they do, otherwise we hand over the software-projects sooner or later towards others acting. And that's one of the most tragic points at all: The community itself failed and fails to see this. People are developing software, doing packaging and offer infrastructure for distributing, but they do not get more support besides some big, known names getting funding and also this is done not direct from the community or any kind of organization in the name of the community, likewise FSF, FSFLA or / and FSFE. No, the support is then coming from companies and corporations. We should not take this as a friendly meant present, because this is never done like it. No company, no corporation is doing anything alike this without some thoughts back and a possible promise to either get real "gratis support" for their own development later on or even worse take over projects, buying them. The phrase **free as in freedom** is a call to action, not just a phrase. Ignoring it ends up very bad finally also for the whole global society.
 ===== What can we do about it? ===== ===== What can we do about it? =====
  
Line 45: Line 53:
   * And who is in charge and command of the users hard- and software?   * And who is in charge and command of the users hard- and software?
  
-A “computer” should be per definition a helping tool, not an energy-consumption with endless scaling, not a fear and risk for the data of users and not only in command of others. In the near theory everyone should even be able to build an own computer, an own "computing machine" with own parts, which only is in command of its own user and builder. This terminology was also misused, as a false promise once. So to overcome the first step of illusion, we need to ask ourselves the above listed questions and make a strict and harsh definition for the software also. With this we can go further to the hardware, but we need to be clear: **Freedom is not free, until we also look close enough and work for its resistance!**+A “computer” should be per definition a helping tool, not an energy-consumption with endless scaling, not a fear and risk for the data of users and not only in command of others. In the near theory everyone should even be able to build an own computer, an own "computing machine" with own parts, which only is in command of its own user and builder. This terminology was also misused, as a false promise once. So to overcome the first step of illusion, we need to ask ourselves the above listed questions and make a strict and harsh definition for the software also. With this we can go further to the hardware, but we need to be clear: **We also look close enough and work for freedom in software being stable as there is no possibility left making compromises!**
  
 We need to stop using shortened phrases and buzzwords, as they are most only some false promises, being never fulfilled. May it be "complete / ultimate security" or "decentralized data as solution". Yes, some of them are helpful for the further realization. But a "decentralized server and network" (Mastodon, Diaspora etc.) is only more part of the problem, not the solution from our perspective: The need to communicate everything with sharing nothing in fact. There are good examples for the opposite. But in fact it is today more than ever needed to share real experiences and help others, while it is also important to listen. We need therefore be honest with each other: Demanding from small teams and minorities to explain their points over and over again, leads only to frustration and exhaustion, nothing else. **Listen carefully enough, be critical and show a helping hand instead of on-going questions only for the own advantages. Make differences of the kind of technology and the technology-stack in usage.** We need to stop using shortened phrases and buzzwords, as they are most only some false promises, being never fulfilled. May it be "complete / ultimate security" or "decentralized data as solution". Yes, some of them are helpful for the further realization. But a "decentralized server and network" (Mastodon, Diaspora etc.) is only more part of the problem, not the solution from our perspective: The need to communicate everything with sharing nothing in fact. There are good examples for the opposite. But in fact it is today more than ever needed to share real experiences and help others, while it is also important to listen. We need therefore be honest with each other: Demanding from small teams and minorities to explain their points over and over again, leads only to frustration and exhaustion, nothing else. **Listen carefully enough, be critical and show a helping hand instead of on-going questions only for the own advantages. Make differences of the kind of technology and the technology-stack in usage.**
Line 53: Line 61:
 Yes, this all means in the end to reside in a niche, away from some majority. But this is a right for every individual, same as it is a right for the group of "free, libre culture and software". The movement may have lost many, even loosing while this article is written. But the niche is far better as it offers possibilities. Outgrowing too fast, getting too many people with us in a small amount of time is not working. There is learning-curve and it is different for everyone, individual seen. So we need to take the time and face one elemental fact also that capitalism is of no solution for those problems written down. There is also no "surveillance capitalism" as this a part of the system itself making everything as possible monetary source. Surveillance is part of capitalism, as we are all included. **We can only break with it, when we look from outside instead thinking from the inside!** Remember: It is your own decision and action to find your solution. But to demand from free, libre licensed software and operating-systems to include non-free services is of no solution in the end. Also to remember: Capitalism is only based on exploitation as in this article already described on the perspective for "free, libre software". It's ground rules are based on "consumption" and just therefore ask who is paying the highest price in the whole chain of services and software. If it is not you, it will be for sure someone else paying that price. Perhaps the person fixing the code or taking on the issues? Perhaps others in moderation of non-free services? There is always a price to pay. Getting out of this is only a promise, when we really want to do that. Not pretending to do likewise often in those days. You are free in your own freedom, but likewise you are restricting others when you overestimate your own freedom. Yes, this all means in the end to reside in a niche, away from some majority. But this is a right for every individual, same as it is a right for the group of "free, libre culture and software". The movement may have lost many, even loosing while this article is written. But the niche is far better as it offers possibilities. Outgrowing too fast, getting too many people with us in a small amount of time is not working. There is learning-curve and it is different for everyone, individual seen. So we need to take the time and face one elemental fact also that capitalism is of no solution for those problems written down. There is also no "surveillance capitalism" as this a part of the system itself making everything as possible monetary source. Surveillance is part of capitalism, as we are all included. **We can only break with it, when we look from outside instead thinking from the inside!** Remember: It is your own decision and action to find your solution. But to demand from free, libre licensed software and operating-systems to include non-free services is of no solution in the end. Also to remember: Capitalism is only based on exploitation as in this article already described on the perspective for "free, libre software". It's ground rules are based on "consumption" and just therefore ask who is paying the highest price in the whole chain of services and software. If it is not you, it will be for sure someone else paying that price. Perhaps the person fixing the code or taking on the issues? Perhaps others in moderation of non-free services? There is always a price to pay. Getting out of this is only a promise, when we really want to do that. Not pretending to do likewise often in those days. You are free in your own freedom, but likewise you are restricting others when you overestimate your own freedom.
  
-It was not possible to oversee the whole outcome when the "free, libre software"-movement was started. Nevertheless we have to work now with different parameters, more strict and straight forward. Nevertheless always oriented on the freedom for all, the technical emancipation and education for the willing people. Freedom is not free, we also need to look critical on our engagement and go into retrospective.+It was not possible to oversee the whole outcome when the "free, libre software"-movement was started. Nevertheless we have to work now with different parameters, more strict and straight forward. Nevertheless always oriented on the freedom for all, the technical emancipation and education for the willing people. There is always need for a critical look on our engagement and a daily retrospective. 
 +===== Conclusion ===== 
 + 
 +One essential question stays unsolved: Is the "free, libre software"-movement ready to be saved or can it save itself from being undermined? That's the point for this article. The following points are to be seen critical: 
 + 
 +  * No historical and political analysis is leaving the movement let alone in unknown fields, so it is needed that the movement itself can order itself. 
 +  * No strict handles are used, so projects and teams are left with questionable decisions for tools and further workflows, creating therefore dependencies for unethical, partwise complete non-free services. 
 +  * No social responsibility is shown in the wide fields, as to remember that everything is political and every decision is same way. Freedom is important to be preserved but not worthwhile it is just seen alone as own freedom includes also the freedom of others. 
 +  * No support from the community let the "free, libre software"-movement going down, very fast and harsh. Getting support from companies and corporations is the wrong way. 
 + 
 +Possible solutions in the same order: 
 + 
 +  * The "free, libre software"-movement is also a movement about social justice, about inclusion and the grant of democratic participation, for free data and information. 
 +  * Strict definitions are working tools, principles and values are needed to keep questionable decisions out of sight. Debates and talks with clear results are helpful same as acknowledge non-free services and stop their inclusion around in projects. 
 +  * Social responsibility is one common ground to grant freedom: Interaction is never deterministic but can be solved with the will for talks under democratic prinicples. Without democratic inclusion the result could be even more harmful as empowering hateful ideologies is same way also the end of free, libre culture and altruistic motivation itself. 
 +  * Support is needed and given on many ways, may it be critical points shared, additions for articles and / or documentations, lines of code, testing or many other things. Without support the "free, libre software"-movement is not possible to work and exist! 
 +  * Being honest towards monetary support should and needs to be communicated: When critical projects are in the hands of sponsors from companies and corporations the community has already lost and will loose its access sooner or later. 
 + 
 +<note important>If goodness and mutual assistance with each other becomes a danger for people, those stances are also an act of rebellion and rearing up towards any form of contempt and hatred! Democracy is not only a word but also without an alternative as free, libre software itself results within. Tolerance of intolerance and therefore hatred and harassment results only in vanishing of tolerance itself. Only facts and information work therefore, conspiracy ideologies not.</note> 
 + 
 +As long as misusage is going forward, named within this article, as long the "free, libre software"-movement will include those logical failures. Unable to solve them besides the cryout for "freedom" alone is not solving anything. Freedom is obvious, when the personal freedom can be seen also in a wider context. It is a simple formula as the more people are able and willing to learn and educate, the more they can also take on other perspectives and find solutions with others around, the wider the perspective would get the more better the solutions can be. If we deny technical emancipation and await always from others solutions, we deny also a possible better outcome, reducing our complex social interaction only to deterministic information and algorithms defined by other instances. 
 + 
 +We have also named "decentralization" within this article, most with a negative connotation. But this naming and its mechanism per definition can be used also positive: When we are ready to use it for real. Instead to focus sources and information at and on single platforms. We should not just copy failed systems and platforms as social interaction and communication is too complex for just some lines written or regulated throughout digital tools. Same when we are going to use the rulesets instead as community in opposite to focus that on just single individuals, names and persons. The opposite direction is to enable really every individual to be capable of doing something, just instead to have only some focus on names, platforms and projects. We do not need to build oversized and complex processing structures, we just need fitting toolsets with doing just one thing and doing that well enough. Bringing the real community back with the will to debate, to change and to work with each other, just to learn peacefully and with democratic participation. Leaving the rest behind, yes, sometimes even strict and harsh as ideologies and perspectives with roots in hatred, harassment and exclusion of groups or individuals have no place in a democracy. **Empowering ourselves to empower others, with the will of those again to carry on!**