free software resistance

 the cost of computing freedom is eternal vigilance

### regarding-cory-doctorows-talk-on-enshittification *originally posted:* jan 2024 recently, cory doctorow gave a talk on his infamous thesis about online platforms. this will not only be about online platforms. making it largely about that is smart, because some of the points relevant to enshittification are about online platforms intruding on users. but automatic updates really turn so many platforms into de facto online platforms- your phone is scarcely different from (or better than) a website in this regard. and your laptop, for many people, is right on the tail of your phone. as a term, enshittification is already being applied to other designs in software, hardware and technology. it will be used to describe business practices. i sympathise with those who hope the term wont become essentially meaningless, though a perfect term isnt whats needed to capture public awareness- whats needed is sufficient inconvenience, paired with sufficient information on how to fight the problem. we have rarely had both. the goal of free software was (past tense) to make all software free, and open source through various counterrevolutions and successful attempts of co-opting watered that down to be almost solely about licenses- the HYPE is still about freedom. this was volleyed back to free software, which eventually started to be similarly watered down and meaningless- compared to what free software used to be. i dont want you to think that i find doctorows work on this useless- i hope it gives a needed boost to the entire concept of user-controlled computing, rather than the user-controlling computing we have today. but i want to talk critically about it anyway. doctorow is free to do so, and so are we, and without this i dont think we have much chance of fixing anything. i will build on the points i agree with. to loosely describe the stages of enshittification, they go something like: 1. good will and catering to users 2. moving from catering to users to catering to businesses 3. moving from catering to businesses to maximising the bottom line its interesting to note that doctorow is actually describing the convergence of innovation and capitalism. in other words, without solving capitalism, you will not stop enshittification. im not suggesting this is where doctorow is going with this- ive been talking about free software for more than a decade and a half, and im taking these points where i think they need to go. but i welcome any agreement doctorow has with that. im even happier with doctorows suggestions on the "forces" that save us from enshittification: 1. competition 2. regulation 3. self-help 4. workers its interesting that these appear to be almost numbered in the order in which they fail. they are also opposites of problems ive talked about that pose existential threats to software freedom: ### competition competition is the opposite of monopoly; ive talked for years about how monopoly takeover of free software projects converts software freedom into digital sweatshop labour; if the project is controlled by large corporations instead of a real grassroots community, you have underpaid labour for taking projects in a direction that benefits monopolies more than the public good. this is a corruption of free software- but closer to what "open source" was all along. because the free software foundation NEVER made enough of the issues open source created for the movement, the movement failed to stand up to these problems- they were ultimately allowed in and even the gnu project is controlled increasingly by ibm and microsoft. this isnt new, and it isnt improving- it has gotten worse for years. ### regulation regulation is one of the more powerful tools for holding monopoly power back in places like the e.u.. however, the e.u. is also well known for encroaching on user privacy and freedom, and while some of their initiatives are definitely helpful in fighting horrors like facebook, we absolutely cannot trust or rely on regulation to save us. sometimes it is an ally of sorts, and other times it is part of the problem. never mistake law for ethics- when the law is compromised by fascists and lobbyists, our ethics are what allow us to address this. ### self-help "self-help" as doctorow puts it- or "diy", is the cornerstone of software freedom. collaboration is also vital in general, but catering to small groups- often projects traditionally consisting of one or two people for years at a time, is how we gained much freedom in the first place. smaller groups lead to smaller projects, which can often be sustained by fewer people rather than larger corporations. like any talk of bloat, what constitutes a small project is relative to a number of things about the project. the tor project, if it consisted of only two people, would never work. likewise the tor project, if run by microsoft- would never work. and i happen to think tor or something very much like it is a worthwhile project. monopoly itself is an attack on self-help, and bolstering diy (not relying on it entirely, which is impossible really) is a strong counterattack on monopoly. however, one thing i used to talk about due to my involvement with the gnew project is the importance of unions to software freedom. which leads to... ### workers when enough workers stand together against monopolies, they can sometimes achieve things that regulators cant- they can also stand together for better regulations. and as was pointed out by the gnew project more than a year ago, if workers stood together for users rights- user rights are workers rights- that would be more a more powerful force than the fsf ever had at its disposal. foundations do tend to fade in effectiveness after years, and labour unions, demanding that user and tech worker alike have the same rights (including the 4 freedoms) are more grassroots than foundations become- due to sponsor takeover. i want to be clear about this, when doctorow talks about workers it is probably understated. but the value of bringing it up at all, in the context where he does, is just about revolutionary. what doctorow surely does not intend to do, but is very likely to do anyway, is lead a discussion that tiptoes around the neoliberal nature of enshittification, so as not to put off activists who lean libertarian or liberal, even though libertarian and liberal politics are insufficient to stop enshittification from taking over our technology. this is the same mistake the fsf more or less had to make- and well before that, it was the fatal flaw in open source from the 90s onward. i dont really blame doctorow for this. id even love to be wrong. it is SORT OF his fault. but i think blaming him for not getting his own points better- in a political context- misses the point of getting it right. the solution doesnt depend on doctorow. he is a thinker, an author, a philosopher, more than hes a leader. im more than happy to see him get credit for giving the next several years of discourse an added push, though. what we needed before, and still need, is to fight the things doctorow calls "enshittification" using the forces he outlines. we need to fight monopoly- something constantly being built up by ibm and microsoft- by standing up for users having CHOICES. as some pedantic people are right about, but too fond of missing the point with- freedom matters more than choices. my retort to that is that if you really have freedom, it will likely result in choices- and if you dont have choices, saying you have freedom is probably farcical. it does depend on the choices, obviously. windows vs free software can be framed as a choice, but its a choice between freedom and having windows take your freedom away. this isnt a GOOD choice. a GOOD choice, the kind people should have more of, would be between options which are free. open source has always twisted the narrative to be about "choice" between freedom and some alleged, sometimes contrived "convenience". for which open source is both reactionary and- as always, a scam. cory doctorow will not save us, and i dont believe that is his goal or any claim he is trying to present. i do not blame him for any of that. instead, doctorow is promoting useful ideas- i think thats good actually- which if we apply carefully may inspire us to work together on saving ourselves. that would also be good. the purpose of talking about what it think his talk might leave out, is to make certain his ideas can be applied successfully- that they can be a springboard for lasting change, not just another open source fad with recycled rhetoric and fresh terminology. i want to stress that characterisation is not a critique of doctorow, but of open source. everytime there is progress, there is also an enshittification of progress itself. apps are, with good reasons that he goes into, a prime example of the enshittification of programs to run on a device. while open source is the enshittification of the free software movement. open source, as "activism" (closer to astroturfing) indeed: 1. focused on users originally 2. became more about businesses than users 3. is increasingly more about the bottom line and maximising value than either users or other businesses its dishonest to try to separate open source from the businesses that are complicit in enshittification by doctorows definition, because from day one open source was truly about increased hype about catering to users, paired with a reactionary effort to make this more about enticing businesses to get on board. will doctorow try to square that circle and thus miss his own point? i think thats inevitable, because if that isnt his deliberate intent (i doubt it is really) his audience and ultimately his sponsors, employers or publishers will push him in that direction. im not accusing him of lacking integrity. im saying the movement in general does too much tolerating, even promoting- of what amounts to corruption. just the same, doctorow is presenting us with ideas we can all think about, which are useful to an effort to de-shittify tech. whenever you have a product, or service, even a useful idea- its a very good idea to talk about the limitations, so you can foresee a point where more will need to be done towards whatever goals are being discussed. thats why i wrote this, and i also think doctorow has done us a service by giving more people more useful points to discuss- and apply- for years to come. i would add that if more people who cared about fighting enshittification learned how to code, even a little bit- they would be additionally equipped to fight this and to understand the problem even better. this isnt said to exclude people who dont know how to code- its specifically to encourage such people to start there. but that of course, is an option. coding is definitely not the only tool that helps software freedom. but it is one of the best ways to better understand computers, and problems related to computing. license: 0-clause bsd ``` # 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 # # 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