directory-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: On the good neutrality of free software


From: Lorenzo L. Ancora
Subject: Re: On the good neutrality of free software
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 20:43:37 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0

To Quiliro:
[...] This whole  discussion is based on the assumption that the definitions of 
one person
should be accepted by the rest.

All definitions are from the Cambridge dictionary. Nothing original.

If an FSD administrator wants to reject a software he/she must also
add a valid motivation in the edit summary and that means explaining
the specific reason for deletion. [...]
Telling others what to do is certainly not a productive to anyone.  Or
is it?

I've only described the standard editorial procedure for wikis.

Something additional to consider is that logical positions are merely
justifications for previously underlying feelings pushing towards a
certain attitude.  That is the way the unconscious works according to
psychologists.

That only if there is an impediment to catharsis during a session. :-D
A steadier conclusion might be that I genuinely like rational positions.

To Denis:
Do you have example of software that is and is not political?

Mmmhhh.... you just requested in a newsletter the names of political software to someone who's against giving popularity to political software and that just after stating you are in favor of politics in software. Nice. :-|

Political: notepad++ and the software you just cited, Commonist, which sports a politic flag in the logo. Maybe others, if they are obviously political (ie. you don't have to infer it);

Not political: anything else.

Is Firefox political (it tries to block a bit of the tracking)? What
about icecat (it blocks more tracking and even has modified Firefox to
not even promote nonfree addons)? What about a free version of Chromium?
Is any new browser with different positions on surveillance political
because it changes something? Should all browser not protect users to
not be political?

If, for example, the developer of a web browser publicly challenges a certain country with a statement or satire, then his/her product inevitably becomes a political tool. In general, web browsers are not political tools because they implement filtering with the exclusive aim of protecting the user experience. So, their specific behavior isn't tied to challenge a certain country, its government or its citizens.

In France, software applications related to the COVID pandemic made by
or for the Government are discussed a lot by the press and the people.
So I guess that by extensions all COVID applications would be
considered political, else it wound't be fair.

The purpose of those applications is to save human lives.
Something isn't political only because the press or the people discuss about it.

Let's make some intentionally over-the-top examples.

"Please citizen get vaccinated to save the life of your immunodeficient neighbor!" isn't a political statement, it is just common sense.

If a certain pandemic-related app is clearly associated with a certain political message like ie. "Only evil member of group XYZ take the vaccine shot and hence should be marked with a pink permanent marker on their forehead!", then yes, it is clearly a political tool. If you see the flag of a political party somewhere, then it is a political tool. If a software is clearly tied to a certain, specific political party (not "the Government") then it is a political software, vaccine or not, because in this case the vaccine is just an excuse to create an app or, in other words, the primary purpose of the app is not to help the end user.

If we instead take "trying to influence the way a country is
governed", here it applies to a huge quantity of software because there
is something called "prefigurative politics". Mediawiki, git, and
almost all collaborative software would probably fit into this category.

...and in the same way ripe bananas are dangerous cudgels.
                        Obviously no.

Don't quibble to dilute the concept, stay focused: if a software is political it is easy to spot, because it is intentionally tied to a certain political message. Political software is and will always be a 1/1000 of existing software because normally software is developed to solve one or more issues of the end users and eventually make profit, so when someone tries to exploit it to send a political message that situation becomes obvious, like in the case of notepad++.

If we go this route, that would probably create a lot of political
fights on what software would be allowed or not.

For this reason, the task of approving submitted software rests solely on the administrators. If a software is controversial it is fairly obvious. In case of doubt, quick majority vote and problem solved.

I think that being more political aware when working on
software would probably be a good thing as some software can
potentially have huge impact on the world (both positive and negative).

The only purpose of the FSD is listing and representing free software.

The burden of "changing the world" with honeyed words is far better outsourced to politicians during public debates.

[...the rest of the email...]

You email contain terms like "Communism", "Capitalism", "taxes", "accepting the status quo", "peasantry", "tractors", "human labor" and even "revolts against machines". No dude, I won't take the bite.

This will be my very last answer:

If the source code, the repository or anything public on which the developer has editorial power contains a clear and explicit political statement/satire visible by those interested in the software, then the software is a political tool.

In other words, to be sure it is 100% clear:

If a software is not developed exclusively to solve a specific problem - or set of problems - of the end user but instead can be directly associated with a public political ideal/agenda/joke/statement/whatever visible by those interested in the software, then the software is a political tool made to exploit the free software community and you should avoid it.

Then, the decision whether to accept the software (which must obviously be totally free/libre foremost) depends on how wise and ethically correct the administration wants to be: it is all nice and happy until the winds of politics change and go against what you naively accepted before. Be smart, steer away from politics, prevent problems.

Administering a public website always means offering a service to all visitors and that requires proper selection of the published contents. If some users - and, most important, their governments - might be offended or damaged by a certain political application, better be wise and avoid it, because it is not really free software and consequently does not deserve to be listed.

You should not quibble to find an excuse for accepting a software which is obviously political only because it attracts attention or because apparently no alternative exists. The FSD is not forced to accept a software only because it is trending or because there is no alternative, its purpose is to list only software which truly is free.

Temptation is strong, but developing free software means doing the good of the many, a purpose which goes beyond politics and shall not be tainted by it.

Farewell,
Lorenzo

Il 17/09/21 23:15, quiliro@riseup.net ha scritto:
"Lorenzo L. Ancora" via <directory-discuss@gnu.org> writes:
If an FSD administrator wants to reject a software he/she must also
add a valid motivation in the edit summary and that means explaining
the specific reason for deletion. Nobody's going to reject a software
on suspicion, approval can be delayed but at the end the FSD only
approves edits based on facts (and this is a good thing for everyone).

Here is my view about this ordeal.  Please consider it in order to
continue in a productive way.

There is no such uniquely definition of the word _fact_ unless it is on
the terms of all the parties involved, and not even then.  This whole
discussion is based on the assumption that the definitions of one person
should be accepted by the rest.  It would be more productive to
establish acceptance of the other people's definitions without adopting
them.  Then we could create consensus on what is each definition on
common terms.  Only after that, we can propose what to do to others.
Telling others what to do is certainly not a productive to anyone.  Or
is it?

Something additional to consider is that logical positions are merely
justifications for previously underlying feelings pushing towards a
certain attitude.  That is the way the unconscious works according to
psychologists.

Warm greetings,

Quiliro


--
All messages from/to this account should be considered private.
Messages from/to newsletters should not be reshared.
TZ: Europe/Rome (Italy - CEST).

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]