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 [2024/04/08 03:54]
throgh [Conclusion] 		en:philosophy:logic_failures [2024/11/15 15:01] (current)
throgh [Conclusion]
Line 38: Line 38:
 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 71: Line 73:
   * 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.   * 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.   * 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.+  * 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!   * 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 self-evident, 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. 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 self-evident, 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!** 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!**