free software resistance

 the cost of computing freedom is eternal vigilance

### tcoyc-introduction *originally posted:* nov 2023 there was a time, not very long ago, when the ubiquity of computers was considered to be "the future". as with the rolling out of electric lighting, the discovery of radio and exploration of space, this future was considered by many people to be new and exciting. today we are living in that future, and many- not all- of the wild promises and opportunities have proven themselves to have substance. many of these things are no longer new, and sometimes they must even be disguised in order to appear new- but there is a tension, both political and psychological, which makes people think that critics of these "futuristic" present times are simply on a mission to stop things from changing and to halt progress. it is more fair to say that every step "forward" is a mix of positive and negative developments, and accepting change with unquestioning faith in industry is foolish at best- destructive at worst. it is a classic propaganda technique to reverse criticism against your critics, and industry has wielded this technique with skill. a fact that people often miss, is that many- if not the vast majority of people, who are interested in a stable, examined and thoughtful path forward are also interested in building new things. it is not "newness" that is loathed but the "enshittification" of things we rely on- the sabotage of our most prized solutions. on one side, you have people who insist on freedom for users- they may not be entirely honest about their position, but they at least believe they are, they are at least sincere. on the other side, you have people who will always make excuses for counterrevolution. most people are on neither of these sides, but everyone is constantly being invited to choose. which side youre on affects how you see the entire conflict, the history, and vice versa- how you see the conflict determines which side of this you will be on. for now. i dont want to describe the sides in terms that are too excessively broad, but i suppose the best way to draw the line is that on one side are those who fight for users to control their computing- and on the other are those who work to take control away from users. for many years, the old bastions of freedom have failed us in this fight. open source was always a scam, and free software has more problems than can be fixed by free software or its leaders. 25 years ago, bruce perens, former debian project leader and open source initiative co-founder- wrote an open letter lamenting that open source had "overshadowed" free software. the points he made then were more salient than any he has made since, but they should be heeded. the real goal, or at least the undeniable trajectory of open source was to overshadow the importance of free software- to create a false compromise between users and the same corporations who seek monopoly at our expense. they will always put a pretty bow on this compromise, and entice us to think superficially about their plans for our future. but that is only the carrot- the stick is when they recruit those among us to stand against our fight. of course, not everyone wants to stand for something- many people just want to use their computer! but even if much apathy is a given, it is not an advantage- at least not to us. apathy is invariably taken advantage of better by those who want control than by those who want progress. one of the primary goals of open source, was to gain the interest and support of those who never cared about freedom- to advance the licensing of free software without teaching the importance of freedom. this was among the laments in the perens letter- a lesson as important today as it was at the time. those who dont care about freedom, but feel they are doing something beneficial, are a threat to freedom itself. the bigger threat of course, are the ones taking advantage of their mixed loyalties. ultimately, freedom plays on self-interest. but a truly selfish person who seeks freedom will not care that much who else enjoys the same, and thus they work for privilege in the name of freedom. a more enlightened self-interest works towards sustainable freedom, which cannot exist when everyone is seeking "freedom" for themselves alone. the answer to this dilemma is simple enough, though many people will try to convince you otherwise: if we want to be individually free, we must direct some compassion and thought towards our own desires and needs, as well as share this compassion and thought towards (at a minimum) our species as a whole. freedom for the self is a requirement, but it is ultimately nothing without the freedom of humanity. obviously there will be, and is, much debate about what that implies. as with software, the easiest solution in the short term is frequently the one that surrenders the most control to a party that doesnt care about our long term interests. free software is political, and, free software is dying. how it may be rescued or revived is something ive been writing about for at least half a decade, and i have allowed a number of other people their say, their opportunity to influence and steer the direction ive taken in advising anyone else i know about exactly what we should do. it would be an absolute luxury, to be able to talk about all of this in purely technical terms. doing so is a smokescreen, when a monopoly has no real answers for your concerns about what they are doing, they will try to dazzle people the same way that star trek resorts to technobabble to advance the plot. i say this as someone who has spent countless hours enjoying several iterations of that show, as well as someone who enjoys technobabble in reasonable doses. but seeing it used to market anti-solutions and quiet dissent is hard to overlook or forgive. i treat projects that do this with extreme prejudice. incidentally, as the world has become more polarised between fascism and progress, this is reflected in the paths that free software has taken. as there is practically no cause that corporations wont exploit for their own purposes, in my capacity as a left libertarian i was too concerned that this was a plot we should perhaps blame on "wokeness". this is said in the past tense for a reason. i no longer consider myself libertarian, though i suppose as a libertarian i was indeed a socialist at heart- today i consider myself a socialist who is perhaps libertarian at heart. i think its plain to see that the invisible hand bestows invisible benefits, and is largely a fairy tale told by capitalists. i note that so many self-styled libertarians have either moved farther to the left in their uncompromising support of lgbtq inclusion, or they have moved farther to the right, where the only real hope for them is to reverse course again. not that i ever wanted lgbtq exclusion, i was raised to hope for lgbtq rights. any former "quibbles", very large or very foolish or otherwise, were at least with good intentions. that is no longer a distinction we can reasonably pretend is not already drawn. "the people have spoken", as it were, and the fringes who pretend to be about freedom but ultimately just attack those who try to express themselves in this allegedly free society are not only the worst sort of hypocrites, but they have very little to offer the rest of us. it is more or less a historical fact that for the past few years, there has been a coup in free software. this coup had several factions and several effects, but although i found it both shocking and extremely disappointing, in hindsight it would be very foolish to view the coup as an "us vs them" event. there were several examples of "us" and several examples of "them", and since that time there are additional examples of "we". what absolutely failed and permanently so, was the status quo. i dont trust anyone who says we are back to normal- that is rarely how history works. i used to think everything about the coup was bad. i still think important parts of it were bad. i do think we were betrayed by some, but opportunists and tragedy aside, i said years ago that i would have supported a coup that was honest. guix for example, benefited substantially from the coup. its not a project i trusted before the coup, nor after. i have no reason to trust guix, i also have no use for guix. there are two groups within the coup that i believe deserve serious consideration- for years i have tried to listen to them, and distinguish them from the rest of the coup. i do not think its fair to anyone, to pretend that the entire coup consists of people with good intentions. but those who are really in it due to the dearth of understanding the free software foundation displays regarding lgbtq rights, i think they had a right to do something about it. as to what they did- i consider it honest, and therefore had already pledged my theoretical support years ago. if you believe i doubted them for too long, i cant disagree. apart from, but certainly related to, lgbtq rights, there is the matter of abuse from richard stallman. originally i saw this as a smear, even ableism, but today i believe there is ample evidence for many if not all of the claims regarding this. it did not help that there were also some demonstrably untrue things said to smear stallman at the time- those were non-factual and demonstrably so before, as they of course still are. sjvn for example, i did not like before the coup and i consider him not a journalist, but a gormless hatchet man and shill for open source. ive mentioned everyone i that i wish to mention regarding the coup, for now. there are absolutely people on "both sides" that i feel have let us down. no matter how much technical skill, wisdom or foresight you may have been blessed with, it is unlikely that you will never be let down. in matters where stakes are high or the goal is substantial, the odds of misplaced trust are only increased. even so, humanity itself cannot function without some level of trust. when trust is betrayed, it is a natural response to distrust, to flee, to avoid those who let you down. it is also a natural response to fight harder than ever before. you may even waver between one and the other, giving up some days and coming back when you feel inspired to. either way, the fight will belong to those doing the fighting. we can join them, flee them, or possibly learn from and advise them. maybe the most relevant question in free software today, is what do we do when weve been let down? at least, thats the most relevant question for some of us. for those who feel truly fulfilled by the fruits of their efforts, perhaps they should simply keep doing what theyre doing. if they already have control of their computing, they are well off indeed. but whether you are content in your efforts, or you have doubts and grievances and are looking for answers, you are invited to continue. 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