Re: youtube-dl DMCA takedown on GitHub is risk for all GNU/Linux distributions

[Jean Louis]

* Pedro Lucas Porcellis <porcellis@eletrotupi.com> [2020-11-03 06:59]:
> And that's why we can't deattach politics from the free software
> movement. This may sounds like taking sand to the beach, but it's
> something that's been bugging me for a while. Free Software can help on
> dealing with those problems, as you can have decentralized software
> which respects the four essencial freedoms (like Sourcehut as a Github
> replacement, Mastodon/Pleroma as a Twitter alternative, etc)

People tend to do what is familiar to their friends and family and
tend to use services that everybody around them uses. To create that
effect companies such as Facebook, Github, Amazon, Twitter, they are
all paying a lot of money to get users base. That is how it happens
that today we speak of "centralization" versus de-centralization.

Sourceforge advertised much and they gained so many free software
projects. But they also distribute proprietary software. So they make
money from proprietary companies mostly. They want people to come to
website and take software from their website. They cannot forbid
people distributing from other websites, but they bind users to their
website. 

GNU as project does not advertise directly by using those lines as it
had got large attention and has been distributed through GNU/Linux OS
distributions. So it did not "bind" or "trap" users, it offered people
to use software, modify, distribute as they wish. And GNU did not
advertise to get large subscribed users' base on their websites as it
has different purposes of providing free OS. It has different
distribution or communication channels. It is by its method of
communication contrary to Sourceforge.

Github is open, so far I know, for any kind of software, be it
proprietary or free software. They host free software in order to get
money from proprietary software hosting. They are advertising and
gained large users base.

Providing services to large number of users that result in
centralization is not necessary a bad thing.

Imagine if Github would be GNU, with exclusively free software, that
would be excellent platform for improvement of society. GNU would be
well known and people would apply more and more to provide free
software. Policies would be straight and influence would be
great. Until now, probably all proprietary OS-es would be abolished by
its users. Those people in last generations receiving proprietary
OS-es would be removing it from computers and putting free OS on it
with complaints to computer manufacturers as Apple. People would
demand free hardware and manufacturers would comply as demand for free
hardware would be raising.

But Github is not GNU as they have different purposes, they do not
care really about free software. They use it only as marketing channel
to get paid mostly from hosting of proprietary software.

Mastodon, GNU Social, Pleroma or any federated social network can
become centralized with a lot of money. Once user base is gained, the
network can be centralized. Both Google and Facebook users could
communicate back in time through their chat. They have used the XMPP
in first time. Facebook user could send email to Google user. Google
user could send email to Facebook user. They could chat between
networks. People who did not subscribe neither to Google or to
Facebook could chat to both of them by using XMPP network.

So those large social networks DID start as pretty much federalized
networks! If I remember well their pages were also pretty much open,
and not closed to non-members.

Once they have gained user base they removed email and XMPP
possibility.

Exactly same thing can take place with Fediverse network. Any company
is free to advertise and gain user base, once they gain large user
base it becomes familiar to others and your friends and family will be
telling you about that website. You will then listen to friends and
family and despite having your fediverse account somewhere else, you
may sign up for this or other special feature or reason on their
network. And so will do millions of others. Sooner or later the
company may block the outside Fediverse and centralize its users.

Fediverse is now in its good state only because there is no company
interested.

And it is enough complex or weird that friends and family of geeks are
most probably NOT on Fediverse. It is for special type or special
group of aware users. I know as I run few instances.

When some friend or family calls me to use some chat application or
social network, I ask them why? Do they know somebody in that company?
Do they know anybody face to face? Why should I trust with my contacts
to unknown foreign company? These questions usually work well. Then I
give them XMPP account and we are connected. 

> but if all main datacenters in the world and infra options are on
> the US/Europe, then the problem will never be solved.

Problem is in corporations with money gaining large users based and
not in datacenters or centralization itself.

If company would be providing free software messenger and hosting free
software servers with the transparent and safe peer to peer
encryption, without abusing users' privacy and selling their
information, I do not think that centralization itself would be
problem there.

There is fundamental Internet bait called "get it free" and that was
never explained to public until today. Would people be taught from
beginning that they should pay for service,  there would be less of
centralization that we have today. Just as for email services, when
people pay for email they are centralized and companies can provide
them service without entering into their private lives. If they do not
pay for service they have to submit to email searches and PRYSM spying
network.

> I think that the free software movement, must seek to unity with
> radical politics that seeks to strenght national infrastructure (and
> therefore improving strategic sectors like tech) which would help to
> deal with that kind of shit.

There is only free software politics for GNU and no other
politics. That is policy of GNU project.

No radical politics.

No strenghtening of national infrastrucutre.

Maybe some other organization, but not GNU. GNU is friendly and
welcoming and being apolitical for anything but free software makes it
friendly and welcoming regardless of various opinions of people and
their political orientations.

Sanctions are political, but GNU project regards only free software
politics, nothing else.

-- 
There are 41 messages yet in my incoming mailbox.