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:technical_feudalism [2024/09/03 15:55]
throgh [Conclusion] 		en:philosophy:technical_feudalism [2025/01/25 14:44] (current)
throgh [The problem of the belief and chosen ones]
Line 25: Line 25:
 Those buzzwords and many more alike are used to make the impression complexity is always "under control". People may have the impression that nothing wrong is done with their data. And no one has anything to fear, so no one has anything to hide. But in fact everyone has a right to hide information: Do we really think all is self-evident? Democratic principles? Free software? The essential human rights? Nothing of those are given out of being self-evident. We have to debate every day again and make points clear, draw absolute red lines and literal fight for human rights, living in dignity and peace for everyone. Including the right to hide sensible information, protecting data. Protection needed exactly because of **technical feudalism** as we have not even talked about the so-called invisible workforces behind the so-called "automatic cloud-services". When looking only close enough we can see many people working behind the scenes. The "digital day laborers" being engaged behind the scenes, to get services running. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber|Uber]] is one prominent example as they pretend to offer a service where people can book driving. But in fact all the working people as "Uber drivers" are made invisible. And that's surely not the whole story as there are many more [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber|controversies]]. Those buzzwords and many more alike are used to make the impression complexity is always "under control". People may have the impression that nothing wrong is done with their data. And no one has anything to fear, so no one has anything to hide. But in fact everyone has a right to hide information: Do we really think all is self-evident? Democratic principles? Free software? The essential human rights? Nothing of those are given out of being self-evident. We have to debate every day again and make points clear, draw absolute red lines and literal fight for human rights, living in dignity and peace for everyone. Including the right to hide sensible information, protecting data. Protection needed exactly because of **technical feudalism** as we have not even talked about the so-called invisible workforces behind the so-called "automatic cloud-services". When looking only close enough we can see many people working behind the scenes. The "digital day laborers" being engaged behind the scenes, to get services running. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber|Uber]] is one prominent example as they pretend to offer a service where people can book driving. But in fact all the working people as "Uber drivers" are made invisible. And that's surely not the whole story as there are many more [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber|controversies]].
  
-In fact we disrespect the people behind the so-called "digital services", while not seeing their engagement and also not reacting when they call for help. Bad or even missing payment? Without any doubts inhuman treatment with demands of high workloads? Being misused to moderate the possible cruelest moments people share on platforms without getting psychological help and more support? Being just complete invisible in general in a per definition inhuman system. Just a number, just another entry in another database, just some set of data being "used for any further purpose at will". We state not wanting to create ultimate "transparent human being"? Well, we are going beyond and create ourselves as machine being. Categorized at will through numbers, controlled via algorithms and our consume is same way a good part of it. Do we ask ourself what happens with our environment when we consume more and more? When we want to stream everything and take that to remote services? Oh yes, services like **Steam** may simulate something interesting: Get multimedial and interactive entertainment at any time given and possible, immediately only one download away. Same for streaming-services like **Netflix**, **Disney+** or whatever else. And what next? What happens when the whole mankind is "streaming"? Do we think what happens with the hardware no longer needed? Or do we just think that others can have it - of course not without costs as capitalism is needed to be served also. And what about the "others"? Are they not also earning a good life? How about we get a bit more back to the grounds and talk to each other? Stopping our journey into self-destruction, would be quite a thought worth. Besides that: None of the services mentioned before is granting anything more as to rent something, not to use and do it as often as someone wants. No connection? No account or period of usage over? End of service, end of connection. And if we only look close enough: Also end of participation for many users, either because they have not the possible hardware or the money doing so. Free, libre software should be on ethical grounds more as just some perspective for the egoistic freedom some stated and state nevertheless on-going. It should be more than a playfield for buzzwords and foul promises.+In fact we disrespect the people behind the so-called "digital services", while not seeing their engagement and also not reacting when they call for help. Bad or even missing payment? Without any doubts inhuman treatment with demands of high workloads? Being misused to moderate the possible cruelest moments people share on platforms without getting psychological help and more support? Being just complete invisible in general in a per definition inhuman system. Just a number, just another entry in another database, just some set of data being "used for any further purpose at will". We state not wanting to create ultimate "transparent human being"? Well, we are going beyond and create ourselves as machine being. Categorized at will through numbers, controlled via algorithms and our consume is same way a good part of it. Do we ask ourself what happens with our environment when we consume more and more? When we want to stream everything and take that to remote services? Oh yes, services like **Steam** or **Battle.net** may simulate something interesting: Get multimedial and interactive entertainment at any time given and possible, immediately only one download away. Same for streaming-services like **Netflix**, **Disney+** or whatever else. And what next? What happens when the whole mankind is "streaming"? Do we think what happens with the hardware no longer needed? Or do we just think that others can have it - of course not without costs as capitalism is needed to be served also. And what about the "others"? Are they not also earning a good life? How about we get a bit more back to the grounds and talk to each other? Stopping our journey into self-destruction, would be quite a thought worth. Besides that: None of the services mentioned before is granting anything more as to rent something, not to use and do it as often as someone wants. No connection? No account or period of usage over? End of service, end of connection. And if we only look close enough: Also end of participation for many users, either because they have not the possible hardware or the money doing so. Free, libre software should be on ethical grounds more as just some perspective for the egoistic freedom some stated and state nevertheless on-going. It should be more than a playfield for buzzwords and foul promises. And besides all of that: Have users of especially named services for "gaming" a bit more about the rights they have got? In fact you are renting software. You do not even own a license for usage any longer, you are just "allowed" to use the software as long as someone is granting you this. And if there is no longer interest doing so, it is just as easy as possible to take those rights away. That's also another big issue: You have paid for software you cannot execute at one given point any longer.
  
 ===== The inclusion of free software ===== ===== The inclusion of free software =====
Line 58: Line 58:
  
 Democracy is living from pluralism, from multi-cultural perspectives being in peace together. There is not just one singular perspective and we are living also with contradictions on a daily base. But this is a first point to accept the contradictions and then work real problems out. And one essential problem is ignorance and arrogance, often described as some intentional planning. In reality this is chaotic driven, but the outcome is a disaster and a catastrophe for democratic values, including the protection of every individual living within, not harassment, not exclusion and for sure not making people invisible and not seen. Democracy is living from pluralism, from multi-cultural perspectives being in peace together. There is not just one singular perspective and we are living also with contradictions on a daily base. But this is a first point to accept the contradictions and then work real problems out. And one essential problem is ignorance and arrogance, often described as some intentional planning. In reality this is chaotic driven, but the outcome is a disaster and a catastrophe for democratic values, including the protection of every individual living within, not harassment, not exclusion and for sure not making people invisible and not seen.
 +
 +===== The misunderstanding of tolerance =====
 +
 +A critical point is the question if only the licensing is enough to mark a project being free and permissive or being the opposite. When looking at the code written by people (or in between also with technical routines) it may be enough. But this is a reduced perspective, only to the essential point of the source-code itself. It is also an ignorant perspective when we just use this approach. Software is immanent depending on the perspective of an altruistic view. Altruism itself is here describing the engagement for a better tomorrow where people can rely on software and complete systems without any precondition.
 +
 +Including therefore interfaces to questionable services, libraries or other software-components is in the clear and strict perspective never working out with the altruistic perspective of free, libre software and culture. The source-code maybe free and permissive licensed, but adding and including clear parts with non-free outcome makes the situation even worse. Tolerating the further development is here a complete misunderstanding of the upcoming issues: In the worst case users do not even have any clue that their data and information they add and handle through a software is transferred elsewhere to places and storages no one except owning entities, persons or / and groups, have access. This is then excused foremost that these additions are "optional", "for the best of the users" or "for the convinience". But this "convinience" has a price and this is a very high one to pay: Users are handed out to already mentioned individuals and groups doing whatever they like with the data. The principle called [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance|paradox of tolerance]] demonstrates very well the problem: When we tolerate intolerance, we will corrupt democratic understanding in a whole. The always used excuse that there are not only two sides is undermining the will to see the fraud going on with **technical feudalism**. The source-code maybe open, free and permissive licensed, but the called interfaces are not.
  
 ===== The ethical erosion ===== ===== The ethical erosion =====
Line 67: Line 73:
 What do we otherwise have? People convinced that freedom and democracy are incompatible, working tirelessly to create a world in which only the strongest survive. For those people social justice and collective responsibility are nothing but obstacles on the path to unlimited power. They embody a mindset that sees the internet as a "jungle" in which only the most unscrupulous succeed - and it is precisely this mentality that is dominating. It is proof that in the digital world the boundaries between freedom and chaos, between innovation and irresponsibility have long since blurred. The freedom promised here is an empty shell that only serves to protect those who use these platforms for their own purposes. That tragic is that those stating to know about conspiracies and "evil masterplans" have their own perspective, so people should be exactly here very cautious. Freedom without responsibility is dangerous. It shows that the world of technology, once seen as a beacon for a better future, is riddled with moral faults that are going ever deeper as long people are not willing to see the problems. What remains is a digital wasteland where the power of the few is exercised on the backs of the many. On behalf of **technical feudalism** not driven by ideals but just on the maximization of power, influence and the own thing they call "freedom". What happens with the freedom of others? Not left within this equation or better is an unknown variable, an empty variable left without any room. And even those actors do not really see the consequences of their actions, it is just their thought to have all they want, right here and now. What happens tomorrow stays also at tomorrow, as an empty space. But exactly this erosion is a long-term one and leaving it only lasting long enough left out also possible repairs in the best perspective as it is also an erosion of the democratic institutions all over our world. We change in fact nothing, when we adapt crucial dangerous developments like the before named under those buzzwords: Who needs unethical collected data and information, as the results are not for all people? And even than: Unethical collected and worked out data stays the same, even when they bring some "results". Or is it just that: Some curious watch and then the next is coming with little steps ahead? We endanger nevertheless the freedom for every being, no matter how we call that later on. The worst thing to be left at the end of this section: Who is "they" in fact we are describing here? Surely others, but also us. Exactly we in that current moment we ignore issues or just one issue, even not big and nevertheless with the option to get bigger likewise non-free licensed data-files. This means everyone is capable to create such kind of damage and that is the point of responsibility we are describing here. What do we otherwise have? People convinced that freedom and democracy are incompatible, working tirelessly to create a world in which only the strongest survive. For those people social justice and collective responsibility are nothing but obstacles on the path to unlimited power. They embody a mindset that sees the internet as a "jungle" in which only the most unscrupulous succeed - and it is precisely this mentality that is dominating. It is proof that in the digital world the boundaries between freedom and chaos, between innovation and irresponsibility have long since blurred. The freedom promised here is an empty shell that only serves to protect those who use these platforms for their own purposes. That tragic is that those stating to know about conspiracies and "evil masterplans" have their own perspective, so people should be exactly here very cautious. Freedom without responsibility is dangerous. It shows that the world of technology, once seen as a beacon for a better future, is riddled with moral faults that are going ever deeper as long people are not willing to see the problems. What remains is a digital wasteland where the power of the few is exercised on the backs of the many. On behalf of **technical feudalism** not driven by ideals but just on the maximization of power, influence and the own thing they call "freedom". What happens with the freedom of others? Not left within this equation or better is an unknown variable, an empty variable left without any room. And even those actors do not really see the consequences of their actions, it is just their thought to have all they want, right here and now. What happens tomorrow stays also at tomorrow, as an empty space. But exactly this erosion is a long-term one and leaving it only lasting long enough left out also possible repairs in the best perspective as it is also an erosion of the democratic institutions all over our world. We change in fact nothing, when we adapt crucial dangerous developments like the before named under those buzzwords: Who needs unethical collected data and information, as the results are not for all people? And even than: Unethical collected and worked out data stays the same, even when they bring some "results". Or is it just that: Some curious watch and then the next is coming with little steps ahead? We endanger nevertheless the freedom for every being, no matter how we call that later on. The worst thing to be left at the end of this section: Who is "they" in fact we are describing here? Surely others, but also us. Exactly we in that current moment we ignore issues or just one issue, even not big and nevertheless with the option to get bigger likewise non-free licensed data-files. This means everyone is capable to create such kind of damage and that is the point of responsibility we are describing here.
  
 +===== The libertarian misunderstanding of freedom =====
 +
 +Kind of interesting and also shocking is nevertheless also the broad misunderstanding of the word "freedom" within all and around nowadays free and libre software and culture. To make a point here: Yes, freedom as word and act is a very important point within all. But freedom is also complete misguiding when only used as personal freedom or better to see egoism. Free software is not existing to provide only gratis access, but it is seen alike this foremost. When asking for support and donations, a project like Hyperbola is doing this on-going with most respect not to harass users. Furthermore "donation and support" is a wide field and do not has to be with money but also with time and helping hands. All of this leads to a broader and very grim picture in this field as people callout "libertarian perspectives" for their approach to free software. Meaning then: They think it is enough to report something missing or demand something, afterwards leaving the developers and maintainers alone so they should work. The thought about missing respect for the time of people doing that in their free time, without getting anything back? Not there.
 +
 +And then the perspective goes even wider: Money to support? Yes, but only for exclusive support and demands. And what is this all about altruism? Is it not enough that the person thinks about own position so everyone is thinking about that also and all are thinking so everyone gets a thought? Not quite as this is a crude and even violent understanding of social acting, resulting within even worse perspectives. The "libertarian" perspective is in the end only the egoistic one, enhancing this with a wrong understanding of "anarchism" and the whole approach is nothing else as "anarcho-capitalism". And this form is the worst of all, because there is nothing social within and the egoism here results even in pure violence to defend own fields for more money while everyone else is not even included. Under those circumstances free, libre software and culture is not able to exist, which also refers to the mentioned ethical erosion before.
 +
 +Please also remember that we work with legends and story-telling here in our global society. One of the greatest myths? Money is working and can be working. No, when "money is working" there are beings and finite resources exploited, nothing else. We create myths about money and property doing active harm to our society and our world in a whole. And nothing else is done with the myths about "earn money with free software". This thought is leading just to non-free parts and exclusive additions, features or even versions of software marked as free, permissive licensed.
 +
 +===== The problem of the belief and chosen ones =====
 +
 +Mankind had in its own history more than only one recurring problem and issues with following so-called "chosen ones". The concept is foremost the same and can be also reflected back in generic to the religious beliefs at the same time: Approaching a desired state until this has nothing more left as being a cult. At the same time there is the opposite way: The work on the desired state with most pragmatism until anything can be done and also anything is possible and allowed.
 +
 +Both ways reflect in the perspective for a freedom but also democratic and inclusive oriented society and group a very bad outcome. Also both result within individuals and groups defined as elementary for the further existance of that approach. But here is exactly the main problem: Argueing forth and back about free, libre software has nothing more left as the repeating of some statements, while majority has either failed to see the need to reflect issues or just use the most pragmatic and convinient way, making free and libre culture nothing more than an empty phrase. A movement should be able to see its possible problems and flaws, work on and overcome them, making it possible for every individual to emancipate and enhance abilities or capacities of facts and information. When a movement is only possible to exist with just one group, organisation or individual person, it will not develop further and finally fail. The same way around with the pragmatism: When anything is possible, nothing especially has a worth and any principle may be used at any given time.
 +
 +In the end this brings back the earlier mentioned points of ethic and moral: What is elementary for technical emancipation as opposite movement towards the described feudalism? Working together, showing the ability towards empathy and support for others when they ask for help, recognize the need of undefined and empty spaces within a movement, a program or any other part, trying to fill this gap and therefore grant a better outcome. When we empower ourselves only to feel empowered and grow to just control others, we are not better. In fact we are even worse as the ones we perhaps initially wanted to teach better: We should know better and nevertheless failed to the simple matter of greed. **Therefore no individual or group should have concentration of power and also not being just focussed on. The claims are important, the deeds and results same.**
 +
 +This is reached now more and more in the space of free, libre software: With so-called "normalized" projects everyone should need. Also the imagination of corporations / companies offering free and permissive software for the "greater good", while pretending to be open for a free society. That is more away from the truth than ever before as companies / corporations would do anything to preserve and enhance their position and income. Not only betraying people, destroying the environment, even also working with inhumane ideologies and pure hatred when this is granting enough attention and therefore money and lasting influence and power.
 ===== The combination of contradictions ===== ===== The combination of contradictions =====
  
Line 72: Line 95:
  
 That is not even possible when talking about software like [[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:rust_trademark|Rust]]. Yes, it may work to ignore the on-going contradictions. But we cannot oversee the cracks this has caused as free, libre defined projects and software has enabled the before called actors - individuals and groups / organizations - to do what they do. All what was needed is the correct decision to a fitting point of time. The refusal to reflect own perspectives and roots have brought free, libre software to the point where the whole word even vanished and got fuzzy, blurred out into vague definitions with "open-source". Nowadays something "open" or "open-source", without the context where free, libre software starts and the neoliberalism with "open-source" ends. We accepted too many contradictions and organizations like the Free Software Foundation globally failed to do what their own mission-statement was: Defending the freedom with responsibility. Accepting contradictions as long as there is enough room left, but there is none. That is not even possible when talking about software like [[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:rust_trademark|Rust]]. Yes, it may work to ignore the on-going contradictions. But we cannot oversee the cracks this has caused as free, libre defined projects and software has enabled the before called actors - individuals and groups / organizations - to do what they do. All what was needed is the correct decision to a fitting point of time. The refusal to reflect own perspectives and roots have brought free, libre software to the point where the whole word even vanished and got fuzzy, blurred out into vague definitions with "open-source". Nowadays something "open" or "open-source", without the context where free, libre software starts and the neoliberalism with "open-source" ends. We accepted too many contradictions and organizations like the Free Software Foundation globally failed to do what their own mission-statement was: Defending the freedom with responsibility. Accepting contradictions as long as there is enough room left, but there is none.
 +
 ===== Conclusion ===== ===== Conclusion =====
  
Line 77: Line 101:
  
 And what is our final position? We are living in times, where people delegitimize humanistic-democratic orientations and clear progressive meant political perspectives. The only perspective counting is the self and egocentric one, others are not part of this. Hyperbola is the different meant orientation as we want to make clear that free, libre software and culture have a clear political orientation. We want that people question social conflicts and start also to question the so-called "status quo" in soft- and hardware. Otherwise as written down here we hand out power to other actors, clearly not on the side of democratic perspectives, clearly not on the side of elementary freedom for all beings. If we leave problems open, if we are willing to handover power to authoritarian populists, we will clearly loose step by step. The GPL and other free, libre and permissive licenses were once created to grant people elementary rights. But they are only tools, when it comes to people using them clearly wrong. So this needs a personal note and perspective, the will to look clearly instead just pragmatic. And what is our final position? We are living in times, where people delegitimize humanistic-democratic orientations and clear progressive meant political perspectives. The only perspective counting is the self and egocentric one, others are not part of this. Hyperbola is the different meant orientation as we want to make clear that free, libre software and culture have a clear political orientation. We want that people question social conflicts and start also to question the so-called "status quo" in soft- and hardware. Otherwise as written down here we hand out power to other actors, clearly not on the side of democratic perspectives, clearly not on the side of elementary freedom for all beings. If we leave problems open, if we are willing to handover power to authoritarian populists, we will clearly loose step by step. The GPL and other free, libre and permissive licenses were once created to grant people elementary rights. But they are only tools, when it comes to people using them clearly wrong. So this needs a personal note and perspective, the will to look clearly instead just pragmatic.
 +
 +Democracy is not just a "tool" for individual rights and egoism, it is meant as inclusion of all willing and not serving just one majority. This also means to defend the rights of a minority against the perspectives of the majority, standing together in solidarity and not just to accept what is given as some kind of "status quo". If the majority is thinking to go this path, to enforce only one perspective for free, libre software and wrongly make accusations towards projects for just defending also the perspective of the minority, then free, libre software has lost its current course as it should be no problem to include diverse landscape of beings and also software itself. Just enforcing one principle sounds on the paper as working but in the practical usage it is going against everything. Using a so-called democratic discourse to in fact distract a project, is also the opposite of the original intention for that wording. In the end free, libre software can fail to empower all beings, when the here described process of ignorance is further growing and adaption of non-free services for projects or just the communication also is further used. Free, libre software is not only an adaption of freedom, it is the base for digital empowerment, for clear technical emancipation instead of technical feudalism. Projects mentioned here using clear problematic frameworks are surely using free and permissive licensing, but in the end fail for empowering as this is just another illusion when speaking about non-free services used.
 +
 +To come to a conclusion within this article is not really easy and there are for sure multiple perspectives, not all correct and not all false at the same time. But for those thinking for any kind of "revolution" we would like to recommend reading some history-books and notes: Most "revolutions" are going to get out of hands at some point, thinking of fighting an "enemy" (whatever kind of definition and declaration) may end not as intended and for those looking to fight "monsters" there should be the point to be warned as it is also possible to become what they wanted original fighting against. So if you want to think revolutionary, you may take into your perspective that understanding, compassion, friendliness and love are the only truly revolutionary ideas. They are opposing most the points exactly being described within this article as to be named ignorance, arrogance, greed and hatred. Hyperbola stands for principles and values, same as many others. So if we ignore them, we will become what we despise.