Comment by glitchc a day ago
> It absolutely does.
I'm not sure I follow. Corporations are free to impose requirements for access to their platforms. FOSS didn't start by demanding that MS release the source code for Windows and Office. It started with developers writing their own alternatives. What helped was the open and standardized nature of the IBM/PC stack that made it all possible. Without it, FOSS would have died before birth.
When BlackRock has stake in 95% of fortune 500 companies, and we are forced to use software and services provided by them because no viable FOSS alternatives exist, it becomes, and already is, a big problem.
You have to own a phone to participate in society these days. I need one to even log onto my laptop for work. Eventually I'm sure some form of digital ID / biometric information will be required for verifying my online identity.
It's a slippery slope, and we're sliding into the abyss.
> Corporations are free to impose requirements for access to their platforms.
Yeah? They shouldn't be. Any attempt to deny us service on the basis of the software we use should be classified as discrimination. It should be a crime of the same caliber as racial discrimination.
> Demanding access to Gmail or Facebook doesn't sound like it.
I would argue that Gmail (or at least some kind of email service) is actually a necessity for modern life -- and if "access" includes sending emails to @gmail.com without being black-holed into the spam folder then I would argue it is one of the most essential digital rights these days. For most of the public, no access to Gmail would make it impossible to get a job, use most online services, or communicate with most people. Arguably this is a right more people exercise every day than some fundamental human rights (like the right to a fair trial -- most people are never a party to a criminal trial).
Facebook is somewhat less relevant than it was a decade or two ago, but if you include all of the services under the Facebook umbrella (Instagram and WhatsApp) then I think there is an argument it is would also inch close to that line. I remember it being incredibly difficult to attend events and interact socially with classmates without having a Facebook account when I was in university ~10 years ago.
(All of that being said, I don't necessarily think this is the key issue here.)
The ability to run our own software in all contexts is absolutely essential for our dignity and safety.
It is the only thing that allows us the chance to resist their surveillance capitalism. Being surveilled and having algorithms extract value out of us is exploitation which absolutely goes against basic human dignity. It also creates the potential for information leaks which are safety risks.
Think about it. The only thing that separates corporate software from literal malware is a huge terms of service document filled with legal boilerplate that nobody actually reads. Everybody theoretically "agrees" to this stuff.
> It should be a crime of the same caliber as racial discrimination.
Universal, but unmentionable and with no consequences in practice?
"Yeah? They shouldn't be. Any attempt to deny us service on the basis of the software we use should be classified as discrimination"
but this doesn't work in real world are they??? I mean look at apple, the iOS is locked down device and consumer know what they buy into
and its user also fine with it
> consumer know what they buy into
Consumers don't know anything about what's being done to them. Even on Hacker News I get accused of being a paranoid schizophrenic "tinfoil hat" user when I point out the fact we have trillion dollar corporations building digital fiefdoms with users as the serfs. You think non-technologists can grasp this? You have far more optimism and faith in humanity than me if you truly believe that.
> building digital fiefdoms with users as the serfs
I wouldn't call you names, but this does sound rather extreme. It also sounds rather imprecise. Is this a metaphor, or a hyperbole, or do you actually mean this literally? If so, in what way I, an iOS user, going to be an Apple serf?
but that just late-stage capitalism ?????
I understand where your coming from but the words of choice make it maybe more hyperbole
also stop acting like most user is idiot tbh they just dont care enough for this shit
they do care if the situation get worse, and until then if said corporation is "refuse" to
serve customer like they used to be people can retaliate
> Corporations are free to impose requirements for access to their platforms.
To wit, hardware that I bought is not "their platform", but many corporations sure like to pretend it is.
It's already not illegal to reverse engineer hardware you have bought (for the purpose of maintaining it or compatibility), regardless of how much IP lawyers like to pretend otherwise. (And even if it were illegal, I would contend that reverse engineering is a fundamental right that laws cannot rob you of.)