@dorian@litterae.social Sadly it contains misinformation: “If a court ever got close to taking action, the offender would simply shift gears and do what is asked.” — that’s wrong. When the 30 days lenience period after notification is over and they are still in violation of the license, they are never again allowed to use the software without getting express permission by the authors.
Getting people to use their IP to control what others may do is just the authoritarian way of Trump.
@dorian@litterae.social Also "how to make social networks safer for women or minorities … free software hasn’t improved things" — this is blatantly false. Free Software has enabled communities to devise their own ways. Where Facebook is still giving huge reach to fascists, Free Software enabled communities to develop ways for shutting out the fascists and protect themselves: https://conf.tube/videos/watch/d8c8ed69-79f0-4987-bafe-84c01f38f966
@dorian@litterae.social and "I have suggested a license limited to non-commercial uses" — that is as shortsighted as it gets. Here’s a debunking of that idea: https://www.draketo.de/light/english/politics/free-culture-danger-noncommercial
For this: A non-commercial license would forbid donation sponsored community-sites — the structure that enabled the Fediverse to defend against fascists — and would make them dependent on ad-revenue.
So this article critiques Free Software ideals as not going with the time without even conveying why they are as they are.
@dorian@litterae.social And being dependent on ad-revenue is how big social networks became the cesspool they are, because it forces them to optimize for engagement (outrage, mocking, and filterbubbles) instead of optimizing for the value the users derive of their interactions. See https://www.humanetech.com/
@dorian@litterae.social The author is not a new face, so he should actually know better.
@dorian@litterae.social I turned my reply here into a blogpost now: https://www.draketo.de/politik/kommentare#shortsighted-critique