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 [2025/01/10 16:38]
throgh 		en:philosophy:technical_feudalism [2025/01/25 14:44] (current)
throgh [The problem of the belief and chosen ones]
Line 63: Line 63:
 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. 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 has access 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+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 81: Line 81:
 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. 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 =====