Apocalyptic Net Loses of Mass Surveillance
Apocalyptic Net Loses of Mass Surveillance
Mathematical prof that surveillance harms x 1K more than it could potentially help.
You're viewing part of a thread.
a big part of me is sad that i will never become rich like my current colleagues
I know this feeling. I was finishing my film Moria's Race which is libre and will never make a single cent. And then I went to see Spielberg's Auto-Biographical film "The Fablemans" and it literally broke me. The amount of evil I have to agree to do just to have a chance at something like this. Oh my god. It didn't help to go see Avatar 2 right after that.
The worst is that a lot of people delude themselves that they are good. I don't think Spielberg is a bad person. The messages in his films seem to point that he is firmly on the side of freedom. Though he never thought about copyright, for example, as being anything evil yet. And probably if somebody will point it out to him, his age is such that there is probably very little neuro-plasticity left there, and if he somehow justified copyright all this time, it will be hard to convince him otherwise now. Not even talking about how his whole career is basically holding on the fact that copyright exists.
To do something about this whole apocalypse, we need to change values. GDP has to go away! Something like a freedom score should replace it. That will already force governments to divert from stupid ideas like "chat control". And perhaps will make them start supporting Free / Libre projects. And then of course, there should be ways to make money in Free / Libre to convince those who care only about how big their pockets are. Donations do not cut it. They are good, but they feel pathetic in comparison to what a proprietary alternative makes. There should be a way to make money without restricting freedom. Devices is a good start. Librem5 and PinePhone are amazing. Software is totally free. Maybe something like a reverse-crowd-funding could be implemented for simple software. Basically the changes aren't even released to begin with, until people come and fill up a can full of money. Each can send a cent or a million dollars. But the idea is, the developer chooses how much will unlock the release. And since it is unlocked it is totally free. And to avoid proprietary versions, until it is unlocked nobody has access apart from the devs.
And then of course, there should be ways to make money in Free / Libre to convince those who care only about how big their pockets are. Donations do not cut it. They are good, but they feel pathetic in comparison to what a proprietary alternative makes. There should be a way to make money without restricting freedom.
they make that money because our system restricts that freedom and it's intentional.
ever since i became a software developer, my work has been 100% based off of extending the capabilities of open source projects beyond their base capabilities that's available to the public. (ie turning it from a hobby project into enterprise worthy product). my task masters make billions of dollars off of the efforts of those volunteers who will never see a dime or even be aware of the details needed to get their fair share that they rightly deserve. the legal "protections" put in place to help open source projects like gnu or copy-left licenses is so easily curtailed that my management and senior engineers literally laugh at it sometimes when deciding which scraps are useless enough not to make money for the company and then report it back to comply with the copy-left. those things that they report back are MINUSCULE compared to what they actually have and they milk it to look like they're actually compliant.
the people who are aware of this fact are, like me, are trapped into legally binding non-disclosure agreements resulting in thousands of us who are aware that we're profiting off the blood, sweat, and tears of people like you and our system assures us that our livelihoods & freedom will be permanently altered in some of the worst ways possible if we made you aware of exactly how we profited. this is one of those evils that i felt i could no longer keep doing, which is one the core reason why i want to stop doing this.
like you, i don't think that they're bad people. it's simply that your environment determines your actions and these people are so placed that they're disconnected from the impacts of what their actions are having on humanity because of those ridiculously high salaries; this encourages their worst, material impulses and makes them believe that anyone doing what i'm doing is simply a malcontent or a shitty developer. it's a open secret in my industry that a lot of people do what i'm doing and the most privileged among us will sometimes derisively use groupthink "common sense" stereotypes to attack the person doing it; it's so bad that most who do it have learned to say that they want a "change" or to "give back" to help them keep the door open should they decide to ever return.
My view on this all is something like this:
- Users should have their freedoms to use, change, share the program. Even if they are doing it for profit. Even if those users are corporations.
- Copyleft is useful to make it so when those who share, share, their versions of the same program is also Libre. It is not about protecting the developer. It is to insure the user still has the freedom.
- One is not required to share. So if I make a version of the program that works for me, I am under no obligation to give anyone a copy of it. ( But under copyleft, if I do, I need this copy to be libre )
So I can withhold giving away my copy until I get paid. Basically I don't even release anything until I get what I want from the deal. And I can do that for every change I make. But as soon as I make what I wan and release it, everything is libre from the beginning.
I can use screenshots or videos to prove that I have a working piece of software. And tease what are the changes I made.
The question now is, can there be a platform to streamline this process?
i think the bigger question is why we rely on honor systems when history proves that corporations don't have any.
I think copyleft was just something too clever not to try for Richard Stallman. But yeah, corporation are doing anything they can to get around it.
i didn't know that he was behind it; the licensing details are confusing to me as all legalese is.
Richard Stallman very likes recursions. This is why GNU ( something he named ) is a recursive acronym. And GPL ( something he came up with ) is a recursive license.
i don't know much about stallman; but little i do know makes me inclined to agree with this. lol
legally binding non-disclosure agreements
I don't sign those.
they won't even talk to me w/o one; how do you not?
If they don't want to talk to me. Then it's fine. I wont talk to them either. I would work in a supermarket. They don't want me to sign nothing at all. And I can do my software on my own.
I would work in a supermarket
that's what i'm doing in spirit. lol
it's only in spirit because i lucked out and found someone with a need for my skills but at a SIGNIFICANT pay cut and it's a non-profit organization that actually helps humanity so i feel that it's slightly better than a supermarket for me.
to help open source projects like gnu or copy-left licenses
Copyleft was not designed to protect the developer from corporations. It was designed to protect users from developers.
it's one of the several other examples that i pulled out the thin air and probably not the most appropriate in helping me make my point.