free software resistance

 the cost of computing freedom is eternal vigilance

### free-speech *originally posted:* nov 2023 the top of the page says: > the cost of computing freedom is eternal vigilance and an old but important slogan for free software is: > free as in speech and freedom of speech, while in some ways never really changes, does lend itself to varying intepretations from one decade to the next. i wont say it isnt an important freedom, for one because i still believe its ultimately a necessary freedom for software to be free. its all well and good to have a license that promises you have the four freedoms insomuch as the license can actually keep that promise, but the license doesnt promise that youll be able to talk about the software. i realise that may be outside the scope of the license with good reason, but you still need that freedom. one of the things that has changed dramatically in the free software world over the past few years, is what constitutes free speech these days. i never approved of munroe reducing it to a constitutional or state-granted right, because it remains an ideal and a necessity regardless of what a piece of paper says. i do get that munroe has a point at least- the ideal may go beyond what the state can and cannot do, but that doesnt mean there arent different contexts where a constitutional right has little bearing. for example, parents can still tell their kids to be quiet, or get punished for not doing so. clubs can still have rules, which would not hold up if mandated on a state level, and so on. but i dont agree with the neat and clean- and very glib way munroe portrays this. its a webcomic sure, but what hes saying is more important than just a webcomic. and disagreeing with munroe is also important, i think. but thats only mentioned as part of a larger issue. im not saying any of this to agree with or refute a webcomic, but to talk about freedom of speech. i used to lean more towards the "absolutist" position. this is based on the idea that any abridgement of free speech is a slippery slope, and that any "rules" are ultimately an abridgement. and it also requires we suspend disbelief and pretend that any such "absolutist" passes the tests they will invariably be asked to pass once they state their position on the matter. anyone can find an example of speech that the absolutists will not tolerate. though i dont entirely disagree that its a slippery slope. we should continue to be very careful to make certain we arent destroying freedom of speech. with that said, some of the gloom and doom about this topic might be unwarranted. to be absolutely certain, if you go looking for examples of community policing that are unfair, based on double standards, or are just laughably unreasonable- such examples exist. and in the slippery slope refrain, these examples prove that things like codes of conduct are terrible ideas. i used to say they were based on zero tolerance policy- thats true sometimes. i took the slippery slope very seriously, and spent a lot of time looking for examples and becoming increasingly concerned. i even made some predictions that came true. i can understand the concern, at least i believe so. looking back on years of disaster, i think i can say honestly, if not also accurately, that while codes of conduct have taken over everything, most things are doing okay. it may piss off some people who would have otherwise contributed, but i see less of this than i see people still being discouraged by what can only be called abuse: not of policy, but of people. i know (because of my own points and personal experience) that there are people who will take advantage of these policies, use them the same way min/maxers use d&d rulebooks, and i absolutely know that corporations will take advantage of this and try to use these things towards chaos. at the expense of free software development. as is their intent. its fair to say that monopolies will exploit ANY opportunity to cause trouble, and policy changes are such an opportunity. i dont dispute that. at this point i dispute the conclusion that we should thus do away with codes of conduct. its fair to say that free software has enough problems as it is. its also fair to say that the people have spoken, and this is what practically everyone wants. for the most part, it is put to good use (as a deterrent if nothing more) and some misuses are terrible. you can make similar arguments for betamax or free software licensing. the latter wont be an easy sell, for reasons that are likely obvious. but even with the fsf today, abuse and discrimination continue. this is more likely to silence someone than all the hazards of having a code of conduct- though the worst instances will always convince someone of the contrary. im not asking you to take my word for this, how could i? this is my experience and im relating it. but its an issue ive paid a lot of attention to over the years, and its a concern ive had for many years. some people get bullied constantly. some of the bullying is illegal, but getting that enforced is unlikely. a number of people in the free software community dont even believe the state is a solution, so the idea of leaving it up to the legal system is a joke to many of them. others take a hybrid approach and believe in dismantling the state, but making use of it while it exists. but for a community that wants fairness, they need a way to deal with bullying and discrimination. and in many places, having a set way (a policy) to deal with that is required by law. at this point the people saying not to do more than the law does will likely move the goalposts and say if its against the law too, break it and change the law. which should probably be done sometimes, though my argument isnt that it should necessarily be done with this. ive seen this from both sides- not because i wanted to, or insisted on doing so, but because thats my personal experience. and my experience is that we STILL do more for free speech than we do for people being shoved out of projects by rampant abuse, even though its usually abuse that most people arent aware is going on. that abuse is still going on- and despite nearly every project having a code of conduct, this hasnt changed. so you may argue, if it hasnt changed, then why even bother with such a thing? but i mean it hasnt changed in the sense that it still happens, not in the sense that nothing has improved. most people are happy with codes of conduct. they arent perfect, nor is freedom of speech perfect with or without a code of conduct. it comes down to how the code of conduct is worded, what it tries to do and how its used. theoretically theres more than that, but in practice its very much like this. two of the worse codes of conduct were from freebsd and gnome- both have since improved their policies. i say this not as a fan of gnome- i actually quite hate it- nor as someone who thinks freebsd is the best bsd. but i am using it for some things. the point is not to say that theres nothing to worry about- i still think vigilance is a good thing. but our concerns should take stock of the real effects and NOT just the worst examples or slipperiest slopes, because thats a bias that leads to a panic i dont think was entirely justified. im not saying this for the sake of compromise, but for the sake of realism and fairness. but theres no proof- i invite you to see for yourself, but i hope youll consider what is said here. and if it takes you years to come to the conclusion that is represented here, it took me years as well. i have definitely been an advocate of free speech. it is not always easy to resolve that with rules about people abusing each other- particularly when that can be implemented poorly sometimes. my main argument here is that even if it isnt always easy, i believe it is possible. and i believe they have managed to do both, but im not saying that its easy for everyone to tell that its so. license: 0-clause bsd ``` # 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 # # Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any # purpose with or without fee is hereby granted. # # THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES # WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF # MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR # ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES # WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN # ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF # OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. ``` => https://freesoftwareresistance.neocities.org