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 [2025/06/18 04:55]
throgh 		en:philosophy:technical_feudalism [2025/06/19 15:12] (current)
throgh [Conclusion]
Line 91: Line 91:
 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. 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 strange case of clear false fingerpointing =====+===== The strange case of clear false fingerpointing and many misconceptions =====
  
 +The community around "free, libre software" and "free culture" has always engaged in a critical retrospective on the technological development. But within there is also a very sinister and false understanding, which had caused a further disruptive and erratic development, even caused a generic rift between several parts and groups. First and foremost the false trust in projects using free and permissive licenses.
  
 +We have several projects concluding in applications, frameworks and libraries like **systemd**, **Rust**, **Wayland**, **Protobuf**, **AV1** and many more: On the one side they are all using recognized licenses making them accessible and inclusive, but on the other side there are clear copyright-rules and patents behind them. Is for example **Rust** really the language for the future? The original development was not funded alone from one group and when looking at the state of the names within the Rust-Foundation, the question arises who is in fact clearly having the control. Is it the so-called "community"? A rest of doubt resides when looking at the already known names from corporations and companies. Also a rest of doubt resides when looking how **Rust** is pushed into other projects and their infrastructure and development and how people praise highly that kind of framework promising much and proved less until today.
 +
 +So the community itself has made the situation worse: While on the one side criticizing companies and corporations, sometimes even with assumptions of most "evil plans" and strange "conspiracy theories", projects and people on the other side use without further questioning named frameworks, embedding them into the code and making them therefore inevitable, unavoidable (partwise) and also then complete mandatory. Therefore the community has then engaged as helper for standardization, while at the same time engaging as vehement critics and doing a **false fingerpointing**, hypocritical double-standards. So reclaiming privacy and security, but also claiming even more false digitization, more inclusion of dangerous developments within "machine learning", more inclusion of disruptive, non-free services or at minimum copying the agenda behind them.
 +
 +The **generic misconception here is the false understanding**: To claim that users are "just users" and need to update on-going instead to help them understanding, so that every user could be a possible developer in the future, at minimum for the own system or later on sharing own insights for others to learn. For this misconception we have also not established a possible way of minimalism: To understand the own system, partwise or even complete, it is absolutely crucial to have no clear non-transparent parts and components included. At the current state the majority in the "free software"-community is doing the opposite: More bloated components and frameworks, less understanding with as said very dangerous developments on-going to even loose more flexibility, freedom and democratic participation in the end.
 +
 +But there is more: When you now think that just "hosting yourself" is then a good thing, please think again. No, we do not mean "self-hosting at your home for local backups", we refer to doing this on the global network, offering on-going a service, some people even dream then of another "revolution for the individual development". Do you please note the issue here? It is not about your person or your own dreams. When the whole mankind would do such, we would have again next kind of big issues: Where should the energy needed come from because so-called "modern implementations" do not rely on small form-factor systems with less consumption and resources (please refer to the written text above)? It is impossible and also wrong doing the opposite extreme position. Decentralization and federation is not solving anything, but creating another bunch and kind of issues then. Is the data provided then safer? Not really, the data is even worse federated and there is no control where it is at any given time after releasing it to the public. Can it be changed or refreshed? No guarantee. Can it be deleted? No guarantee. So as already earlier stated about federated services within this article: They are not offering any solution. They are just a different aspect of the same issue. They are also further developed and outgrowing complexity when offering such implementation to the public. Please remember: Are you developing **Mastodon**? Or are you interested just in hosting it? When the second aspect is the important one, you have already your answer: You would need to take responsibility. And when a problematic conception like federation is hitting the aspect of security, you will need to engage within for the people trusting you in person. But then there is the complexity also: More updates, more progress and the promise of security being better with the next version - without having many times a clear check, just the promise.
 +
 +<note important>Please note therefore: We are not saying that there should be no updates done. We question nevertheless the generic statement, that there should be always an update to a newer version when the current one could get the important fixes. Many projects already do this, but not all and at a given time "older" marked versions are left out also.</note>
 +
 +So we have here many misconceptions, under a generic statement and false fingerpointing. Does this need to change? Yes, for sure. But this will need more people with critical thinking instead of the already named wrong assumptions.
 ===== The combination of contradictions ===== ===== The combination of contradictions =====
  
 The community around free, libre software has many naming-schemes likewise "free but shackled". A software using non-free parts is perhaps under those perspectives "shackled". But is that for real a good perspective? Making a project "free" with some patching? The community around free, libre software has many naming-schemes likewise "free but shackled". A software using non-free parts is perhaps under those perspectives "shackled". But is that for real a good perspective? Making a project "free" with some patching?
  
-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_issues|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 109: Line 121:
  
 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. 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.
 +
 +Stay critical to blind worship of heroic figures, stay critical towards unquestioned leadership: There is no need to create "heroic role-models", but we need to question our own positions and be confident with our knowledge as learning is an on-going process never ending as long we are clearly alive and our surrounding environment with other beings is the same. It is our responsibility to learn and protect, not to destroy with false "progress".