Proprietary software tends to manipulate. I notice this whenever I am forced to enter that world. The user is controlled to the purposes of the entity behind the program.

This needs to end. We need complete control over our own computing. Otherwise we surrender the right to have any say in our interactions with the digital world.

Unfortunately, many people don't mind being controlled, as long as they are convinced it somehow serves their goals, or they are ignorant of the oppression.

When they are told of the problems, most don't want to believe it, so don't.

Critical thinking and self-discipline are vital to avoid being pushed around by those set out to control you for their own interests.

@josias
I thought I'd share my thoughts on the topic.
As you know, I have never written a line of proprietary code. I don't write free software because I think proprietary software is necessarily evil, but because I think free software is better.

I use a lot of proprietary software, and I know a lot of people who use it too.
I don't shame people who use or write it, nor do I let people tell me what I should and should not use.

@PetabyteStudios I don't want to shame people who use it, but they should know that a lot of proprietary software is not neutral (some is in my opinion though). Much proprietary software is incredibly harmful.

@josias I believe people should know what their proprietary software does, but if they wish to use it, then I would let them.

I believe in the freedom to use any software as much as I do free software.

I don't think anybody should nag or shame them, let them be.

@PetabyteStudios To some extent, I agree.

We need to have the freedom to run any software we wish (even that software is being stolen by companies such as Microsoft with technologies like "secure boot" and IBM's Management Engine).

People do need to be informed as well, and make reasonable decisions.

But you are also looking at it from one perspective. Why is it wrong to "nag or shame" people towards liberty but not towards bondage (which is what these companies so often do). I do not believe nagging or shaming should be done at all, but beware of calling something "nagging and shaming" when it is really spreading public awareness of issues.

When I say, "Proprietary software tends to manipulate," or, "We need complete control over our own computing," I do not nag or shame. That would indeed be wrong.

I promote liberty. People should not ever have to sacrifice their freedom to another for vain reasons such as "convenience". Unfortunately, the world we live in does require that sometimes, and we should seek to end those things which want to control us.

@PetabyteStudios In short: people should not be shamed for what they cannot control or for what is done out of ignorance or their own informed decision that doesn't affect others, but that does not let those who seek to control others off the hook.

@josias By "shaming", I meant things like these:

You are trying to make PROPRIETARY software? That is like teasing poor people with free food!

Not
Windows should be avoided because they send a lot of your information to Microsoft servers.

@PetabyteStudios Okay. I try not to do that, because that convinces no one and yeah, is shaming. Shaming is bad.

Follow

@PetabyteStudios Also, are you more concerned about shaming the programmer or the users?

Sometimes proprietary software developers don't harm people with their software. This is the case for most small game developers that avoids putting malware in the game.

But we should absolutely talk about the evils that are done. Should we not?

Much proprietary software is oppressive, and users of it are oppressed. Often unwillingly (they don't know that there is a way other than to be constantly locked down by technology).

Those who write oppressive software must not be let off the hook. But I don't think all proprietary software is oppressive, and the best way to encourage software freedom to them is via more pragmatic means.

@josias
Also, are you more concerned about shaming the programmer or the users?
Probably both.

But we should absolutely talk about the evils that are done. Should we not?
But what is the evil? Do we both agree on what is evil?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
There's Life

A family-friendly social network (Mastodon instance) devoted to the new life found in Christ.