this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2025
312 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

73534 readers
3185 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 33 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Just use open source software with open protocols.

We should have a GPL update that disallows using the software within closed sourced eco systems."this software is only allowed to be run on open source operating systems" for example.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

AGPL sort of requires this and I've started to use it in projects that run on networks. The problem I've seen is that so many cloud providers use software with permissive licenses like MIT.

Honestly, more projects need to switch to licenses that require contributions back to the source if you publicly built upon it.

My company, for example, has a FOSS scanner and rejects any library that has copyleft provisions. I imagine most companies do. The corporate world would become absolutely fucked if every package decided to use GPL.

And just a reminder how one developer fucked over companies by removing his library from npm.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 14 hours ago

That is my point yes. Open Source projects must stop using these permissive licenses, it's allowed companies to enrich themselves by screwing over all internet users and it cost them nothing because of these licenses.

At least invest in your own damned software, assholes

[–] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That just sounds like you don't want the majority of people to use it. You still only have 4% of desktop users on Linux.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 12 hours ago

Everyone can use it, use it all they want however they want

Having said that: Large corporations shouldn't be able to profit endlessly off of my work for free, fuck that shit

[–] toothpaste_ostrich@feddit.nl 13 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Too bad this doesn't really mention the Fediverse or open-source software. Seems a next logical step

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 8 points 16 hours ago
[–] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago

FOSS doesn't work as well for everything. But for something like this privacy and not leaking data is more important if you're going to run it on your computer.

[–] tinsuke@lemmy.world 49 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Love how it highlights that big tech (much to capitalism's fault, TBH) can only drive innovation if the tech has a moat around it, if no one else can, or would, copy it and deploy it at a lower cost.

Which is... the argument that people use to defend capitalism? That capitalism drives innovation and makes it accessible to everyone at the lowest possible price.

I like the frugal tech idea as much as I like degrowth.

“Capitalism creates innovation!”
The innovation:

[–] eldebryn@lemmy.world 15 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

That's basically saying that "big tech" (as we know it today) and competition-friendly capitalism just cannot coexist. Which I'm inclined to agree with.

[–] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago

There's no reason you couldn't have people grow a new Internet that isn't reliant on AWS and cloud flare and other big tech stuff, it's just that it's much easier to do that since it's already there. And you still have the problems with spammers even if you try to move away from capitalism.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago

Frugal tech idea and degrowth are more capitalist than a handful of monopolies owning you in every orifice and billing you for it.

If by "capitalism" we don't mean paleo-industrialism of XIX-century aristocrats with monocles and child labor. If we do mean the "free market with protections for property, rights, safety and anti-monopoly regulations yadda-yadda" moderate-normal-classical model.

[–] Thwompthwomp@lemmy.world 25 points 22 hours ago

This is a pretty good article. Something I try to stress to my students. Technology is a major driver of culture and society, and understanding that complexity of relationships is important. It’s not developed in an isolated bubble, nor is any technology neutral or value-free.

I like that the article highlights community engagement. That is so very true. Otherwise some good-intended deployment can quickly become technological colonialism when the users might not be able to do system upkeep or it solves the wrong problem