Danny M @ dannym @lemmy.escapebigtech.info

🚀 Seen my posts and want more? Dive deep into the issues with Big Tech at

---

Read more

Posts

9

Comments

167

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yep! I prefer not to use products by companies that hate me so I mostly avoid YouTube and other similar platforms.

I was referring to his edit which is:

Edit: Oh god… It’s Rossman. Of course it’s dishonest.

And my argument was that it's fine to disagree with him (especially if you have conflicting evidence), but I don't think that it's warranted to call Rossmann dishonest

By the way, I don't even necessarily disagree with his main opinion, the video title is clickbaity for sure

How is he dishonest? It's fine if you disagree with his opinions, but saying he's dishonest is very.... well.... dishonest :P

There are two proposals (https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/2987), one for a syntax specific to comments which would make your link the following:

#3983363@lemmy.nz (it might already work in some frontends, but it most likely won't yet)

and the second is using standard web technologies to register handlers for lemmy and then linking to posts like so (using my instance as an example):

 js

    
navigator.registerProtocolHandler("web+lemmy", "https://lemmy.escapebigtech.info/search?q=%s", "Lemmy cross-instance link handler")

  

which would take you to the search page where your instance will show you the post on your own instance.

I personally think the best way is something in between, or rather implementing both

Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies.

sigh developers will ALWAYS be able to outsmart companies stealing from others.

Agreed, but it kinda already is... Ever gone to a library?

First time I'm hearing about Bookwyrm actually, that's pretty cool.

I'm not so sure about that.

Of course, people can be dishonest, but nothing stops the same from happening with proprietary software. Cracks do and will always exist. As Louis Rossmann aptly put it, "If you choose to steal paid FOSS software nobody is stopping you, that's between you and your God."

While it's technically feasible for a purchaser to redistribute FOSS software, this act doesn't negate the continuous value a developer can offer. Think of it akin to a chef in an open kitchen; the recipe may be visible to all, but the chef's expertise in crafting and adapting the dish, as well as the dining experience provided, is what customers pay for.

In the world of proprietary software, the illusion of control is often just that – an illusion. Despite the efforts to safeguard against unauthorized distribution such as DRM, software licenses, verification servers, etc. piracy remains a prevalent issue. The key difference is that FOSS is upfront about this reality, building its model on transparency and trust rather than control.

Morally speaking, the FOSS model respects user freedom and fosters a community built on mutual respect and collaboration. It acknowledges the possibility of misuse but chooses to focus on positive engagement and the creation of value that extends beyond mere code. In this way, FOSS aligns more closely with the principles of intellectual freedom and individual empowerment, encouraging a market where ideas and innovations are shared and improved upon collectively, rather than hoarded for profit.

But ultimately, the F in FOSS doesn’t really mean “Free”. It means “Free to the end user”.

The F in FOSS does NOT mean gratis. I absolutely hate that we decided to call it Free. There have been attempts at saying another word like libre (aka FLOSS) but those haven't worked out.

I don't agree with the FSF on a lot, but their definition of free software is as follows:

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

In other words software can be paid and still be FOSS. In fact, I want to see MORE paid software that's FOSS.

Gratis software only works in very rare cases, when an entity other than the user of the software pays for it, but that is NOT the case with FOSS.

I want more FOSS software that is monetized. Charging for FOSS software is not only permissible but desirable. This model ensures that developers are compensated for their skilled labor, fostering an environment where innovation is rewarded. It's about creating a sustainable ecosystem where the values of open-source are upheld without sacrificing the financial viability of the developers.

When software is open-source and monetized, it strikes a critical balance. Users gain the freedoms associated with FOSS – the liberty to run, modify, and share – while developers receive the financial recognition for their contributions.

Paid FOSS software also opens doors to more professional and polished products. When developers are remunerated, there's a greater incentive to maintain, improve, and support software. This, in turn, encourages wider adoption, as users are more likely to rely on software that is regularly updated and supported.

Moreover, a paid FOSS model disrupts the surveillance capitalism model. It negates the need for monetizing user data, as the revenue comes directly from the users in exchange for the software. This aligns perfectly with the principles of respecting user privacy and data ownership.

I WANT to pay for FOSS software that respects my rights and freedoms. The payment becomes an investment in a world where software is not just a tool, but a statement of principles. It's a declaration that I support an ecosystem where the power and control lie with the users, not in the hands of a few large corporations.

By paying for FOSS, we're contributing to a marketplace that values ethical practices over profit maximization. We're fostering a space where software developers don't have to resort to underhanded tactics like data mining or invasive advertising to make a living. Instead, they can focus on creating quality, user-respecting software.

This isn't to say that all FOSS should come with a price tag. There will always be a place for gratis FOSS, especially in educational and non-profit sectors, tho in such cases developers should strive to ask for donations. But for the software that powers businesses and our daily lives, a paid model is more sustainable and ethical.

The beauty of this approach is its alignment with the principles of free-market capitalism. It's a voluntary exchange where value is given and received. Users pay for the freedom, quality, and respect that FOSS offers, while developers are compensated for their ingenuity and hard work.

it's not cheap, but it's not prohibitively expensive either, unless you watch a prohibitive amount of youtube (i.e. you watch youtube 24/7)

You can get a 10TB hard drive for slightly under 200 dollars today, then just throw it in an old computer (even if the parts are 10+ years old, it's fine), install a linux distro and install peertube.

Peertube does indeed have that functionality

Then use alternative youtube clients, like piped or freetube.

Or even better: spend money (if you can afford it) to host a peertube instance that automatically rips the videos off of youtube.

That's an even stronger message that you'd rather spend money than use their crappy free services.

Let's remember, fellas, that big tech is not a disease that needs to be eradicated. Let us not forget that Google is a legitimate corporation, not merely a group of professional stalkers. And let's be clear: obviously you are the crazy ones for worrying about this, naturally...

Pardon my jest; I was merely echoing the absurdities often heard.

Maybe just maybe it's time we stop with this garbage and actually stop using their services. Nothing will change if we keep using their services.

The most direct and effective strategy to inspire reform in their practices is to stop using of their platforms. Each time we use a service from Google or any similar big tech entity, we inadvertently endorse their methods.

YOU hold the power to change them by using FOSS alternatives instead.

To be fair, the allegations haven't been proven and allegedly he was 13 at the time... not that it makes it any better, but context matters

I don't know why anyone would write their IPs in octal, but fair point

Definitely, tho if you store it as a u32 that is fixed magically. Because 1.2.3.4 and 1.02.003.04 both map to the same number.

What I mean by storing it as a u32 is to convert it to a number, similar to how the IP gets sent over the wire, so for v4:

octet[3] | octet[2] << 8 | octet[1] << 16 | octet[0] << 24

or in more human terms:

    
(fourth octet) + (third octet * 256) + (second octet * 256^2) + (first octet * 256^3)

  

Please don't. Use regex to find something that looks like an IP then build a real parser. This is madness, its's extremely hard to read and a mistake is almost impossible to spot. Not to mention that it's slow.

Just parse [0-9]{1,3}[0-9]{1,3}[0-9]{1,3}[0-9]{1,3} using regex (for v4) and then have some code check that all the octets are valid (and store the IP as a u32).

If somebody actually did that it would be grounds for removing their privileges to merge into master. THIS, THIS is why the JavaScript ecosystem has gotten so bad, people with mentalities similar to his.

the results for me are hilarious, who knew people in my general area downloaded so much porn... and... weird porn at that

it's literally only porn, who the heck torrents porn?

some of the most hilariously sounding things on that list: