> "emotional (or financial) strain of knowing ..."
As an astute observation about which few care to
"psychologise". Namely, that beyond simple profit, the blind reason of
markets, and business just being business, there's a lot of plain
bloody-minded egotism out there in the corporate world. There's folks
who will destroy value and opportunity, not because it's "competitive"
or "necessary", but because it pleases them. And they throw their toys
out of the pram if anyone threatens their lunch or questions their
entitlement to have it.
We don't acknowledge or talk enough about the /emotional/ landscape in
the tech world. That is a serious blind-spot when you have people like
Musk and Bezos in the mix.
I agree with the problems, however the solutions seem far fetched.
90% of these "solutions" are that the government will save the day with decisions that benefit its citizens and it's own bottom line. That doesn't represent reality and I don't see how you could get there from here.
In some sense the government, which occasionally is run by sensible people, does save the day. Take Portland Oregon, or Curitiba Brazil as examples. They saw gains in multi modal design that benefited all citizens, not just the privileged elite who can afford the luxury of mono transit design.
Maybe this doesn't apply to your govt, but I live in the US and I don't have any confidence in the govt to "fix" tech related problems and get e.g. right to repair right.
Why?
Because they can't even solve the classic problems in front of them. Primarily healthcare. Healthcare is a thing that affects everyone. It's a problem as old as time. And it's vital to life. If the government can't get this right, what chance is there that we can trust them to regulate something like right to repair.
I haven't double checked the following statement, so YMMV:
"Universal health care is such a complex beast that only 32 of the world's 33 developed nations have been able to make it work."
(In my country, it is illegal to be uninsured. The flip side of this is that it is therefore illegal for an insurance company to refuse coverage. Another corollary is that insurance is personal, without employers as unneeded middlemen.)
There's an edge case where if you have the "state" insurance, then leave the country, have private health care abroad, and then move back, the health insurance situation gets difficult. You're no longer allowed to get the "state" health insurance, and must go private. But the private ones can basically rack you for the maximum amount if you're old enough, so you can end up not being able to afford the insurance. At that point, you're now breaking the law, as I understood it, because you're without health care insurance in a country that mandates it by law.
> "Universal health care is such a complex beast that only 32 of the world's 33 developed nations have been able to make it work."
Please note that I didn't say Universal health care. I'm a consumer of healthcare and so I'm qualified to judge it as a problem, but I'm not going to prescribe the optimal path - I leave that to the real experts.
I'll also say Universal Health Care =/= health care solved. I've spoken to plenty of people across UK/Canada/EU who have a lot of complaints about their system.
Since the Affordable Healthcare Act, it is also illegal to be uninsured in the US, and illegal for insurance companies to refuse coverage (pre-existing condition).
Right to repair has a simple solution. Apply a 100%, 1,000%, or whatever percent necessary excise tax on manufactured products.
With a sufficiently high premium for new products, consumers will automatically start prioritizing device longevity and/or repairability when making their purchasing decisions.
Solving the supply/demand/patent/changing demographics/liability issues of healthcare seem far more complicated.
> Apply a 100%, 1,000%, or whatever percent necessary excise tax on manufactured products. With a sufficiently high premium for new products, consumers will automatically start prioritizing device longevity and/or repairability when making their purchasing decisions.
It’s a simple solution if you only care about device longevity and nothing else. You’re basically proposing that we vote to make new iPhones 50% more expensive.
Um no, I don’t think I’ll be voting on that. Good luck getting support for your bill.
I am very well aware that there is no broad political support for reducing our consumption. That is why I have no qualms about consuming as much as I do. However, I will support effective measures like this and denounce lip service measures like recycling plastics or measures that target only certain populations.
I don't support this idea, but a percentage-based tax may actually cause the opposite effect (from what you describe as your goal). A flat tax (fixed number of dollars) is more likely to achieve your aims, and has actually been implemented with that result in the past. The example that comes to mind for me is the United Kingdom's flat tax on French wine (a long time ago).
Why would a percentage based tax cause the opposite effect?
A flat tax does not make sense to me. It would have the least effect on the most expensive items, which is what you want to be most repairable. The more expensive the product, the more repairable it should be.
Flat taxes drive out the cheaper, lower quality items. Percentage taxes make the more expensive items even less affordable, and often drives people to lower quality items.
Wine is not a relevant comparison in this situation, since it cannot be more repairable or have longevity compared to other wine.
For a product you can use over and over and/or repair, a percentage tax would make it so buying the low quality version 5 times is more expensive than buying the high quality version 1 time.
For example, right now I buy a pair of shoes every 6 months or so from Costco for $25/$30.
With a 100% excise tax, these shoes would cost me $100 or more, and a higher quality pair of $100 shoes that lasts 2 years would interest me instead.
If you have any actual data to share, please do. That said, I am not inclined to discuss this on the basis of anecdotes and personal insights, especially because I think your aims are misguided.
I write all of this while wearing ten-year-old boots which have been re-soled twice.
The government gets a lot of things right and has solved a lot of problems. It doesn't get everything right and it can't solve every problem, of course.
I think that it's not logically coherent to say that government is worthless just because it hasn't managed to resolve your favorite issue yet.
Don't get me wrong -- the government is no panacea, and sometimes it can even make a problem worse. But it is a powerful force that can and does address and resolve real issues.
We're on the same page here. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's reasonable to think that government is worthless just because it hasn't resolved that problem yet. It's an absolute crime that the problem is unresolved, yes, and the reason it's unresolved is because of the various flavors of dysfunction and corruption that has yet to be dealt with. However, that doesn't mean that there can't still be good action in other areas.
I don't think government is bikeshedding on right to repair, either. The amount of time and effort being put into that issue is a tiny fraction of the amount of time and effort being put into health care issues.
You could always try and run and fix that yourself. Or propose solutions to those in charge. Or rally support for a movement to garner the attention of officials. No system is perfect. Perhaps starting a tech movement with code.
I've certainly thought about it. But I don't think I have what it take to win an election. And yeah the fundamental problem with democracy imo is that skill to win an election does not equal the skill it takes to govern. We systemically conduct "job interviews" for politicians on the wrong set of skills.
I also do alot (in my opinion) to improve the world in my corner. It's not possible for 1 person to fix healthcare AND climate change AND education AND homelessness, etc.
How do you know you could fix all if you haven't shown you can fix one? And finding a way to talk to someone in charge is far easier than running, small steps work too. For context, Teachers are protesting en route to pick up my dog around where I live. Didn't know that till now.
I mean maybe you could. Who knows. But you are correct. Read in haste. But you did frame it in a hero as one person. I'd think it could maybe be lead by someone. But would require cooperation.
Yes, but they are only required to stabilize people, not to treat them further. Some people eventually reach a point where they can't get to an emergency room fast enough to be stabilized.
Yeah the cognitive dissonance between writing "Little Brother" and "government can be trusted with more power" while its simultaneously advocating for encryption back doors is mind boggling.
There isn't necessarily cognitive dissonance between "no government can't ever be trusted with encryption backdoors" and "the government could eventually made trustworthy enough to regulate oligpolies".
The reality will probably be that the government will start supporting companies in their quest to lock down their hardware to prevent bad state actors from using the tech, but at the same time this is useful to track citizens.
While it isn't impossible, I agree that it's unlikely in the current political climate. If we could ever get back to a place where government was even remotely functional, it could almost trivially address the right to repair issue via procurement policies (i.e. 'we will only buy from suppliers who...')
The government cured an incurable disease in a year and gave away its cure to its biggest enemies for free and people are still acting like the government is bad and oppressive. It really shuts down good dialogue when “the government” is demonized beyond all reason.
Even better are people who demonize governments and at the same time think it is somehow a good idea to vote people into government who run on not much more than claiming the government is evil and cannot function.
What do you even expect them to do? Enrich themselves? Make government even more dysfunctional to prove your point?
I don't know about you, but even if I believed governments are evil and dysfunctional I'd rather vote someone idealistic in who doesn't believe that and tries to really fix things. Unless of course you want the whole system to go down.
People flag you because you’re not using an appropriate tone for this site. Try being more curious and less accusatory. Less insults and more questions.
> 90% of these "solutions" are that the government will save the day with decisions that benefit its citizens and it's own bottom line. That doesn't represent reality and I don't see how you could get there from here.
This attitude is poisonous. It's not constructive.
Edit: It's not constructive to dismiss government out of hand with vague hand-wavy arguments. Government may or may not be the solution. If you don't think it's the solution, you should be able to produce concrete arguments to support your thinking.
I guess the problem is I don't believe there are solutions. So many of our problems stem from a collective insanity to solve every problem we set our eyes on. Not everything that hurts is bad, not everything that kills is harmful. Death and decay are part of all systems, resistance is the path of suffering.
Possibly the ultimate poison and deconstruction? We would be better off unlearning so many things we think we know.
For those who only lived post-Reagan where the Boomers who took advantage of the New Deal system dismantled it to then claim ownership of everything… government looks like the problem. Prior to that it was actually a quite capable social construct which has been hollowed out intentionally
But it’s the meat suits in charge of government that are the problem. We hide behind reductive euphemisms.
The problem is Nancy Pelosi, Trump, Biden, Mitch McConnell, Schumer, Feinstein, Grassley, RBG… the problem is leaving the same old ossified assholes in charge.
Stop voting for post world war, Cold War paranoids, who huffed leaded gas fumes prior to the ban. Ageist? Who cares! Look their implicit ageism deflating the next generation, doing nothing but ignoring global warming.
The problem is not nebulous social terms like “government” or “capitalism”. It’s the fucking nutjobs in power.
Everyone wants to take the Leave it to Beaver approach to our elders. The result is nihilistic indifference to the future as we wax poetic about the problem. It’s bizarre and pathetic how we continue to debate the issue in vacuous abstraction
I much prefer Sivers' vision of tech independence[0] over Doctorow's vision of a law-regulation for every problem. They aren't necessarily incompatible with one another. Sivers is exit compared to Doctorow's voice (in the Exit, Voice, and Loyalty framework[1]). However, I think what Doctorow advocates is more likely to result in regulatory-capture than people-power. I think that capture is more likely to result in a world with higher costs in choosing forms of exit.
We are in such a connected age though. I do want to exit and start my own shit, but I don't want to walk away from all my friends and family who aren't into pioneering a new digital existence.
Sure I can keep running my xmpp server & begging people to contact me over xmpp. But I'm going to miss all the life updates & chatter my friends are doing on Facebook or Instagram or Discord.
The points in this article seem super spot on. The anti-cirumvention laws obstruct any kind of fair rise of an interesting alternative. We can walk away, but only if we are ok severing ties. Competitive compatibility is the relief we need to allow meaningful choices.
The world of physical products allowed consumers a lot of property rights to the stuff they purchased, but in the cloud age these lords of the cloud have everything tightly sealed up in data-keeps and you likely stand 'in felony contempt of business model' (and are likely liable for these fines that start at half a million dollars for first infraction for just making the tool), if you do anything that isn't explicitly built into the app already.
This shift from the world having some property rights to being ruled over from afar by contract law was pointed out by Mark Lemley, decades ago, and highlighted in the lovely Web scraping for me but not for thee, which points out that big companies all got their start off the exact sort of violations & scraping & mercenary-done competitive compatibility that would get you or I blasted out of the waters in a heartbeat.
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/08/web-scraping-f...https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37264970
Exit is only interesting if it doesn't mean going off to live in a digital barrel. I absolutely fully agree, we need to own the means of connection. We fully need to bootstrap real alternatives. But if the alternative has to create a walk-away movement to succeed, that's a horrible thing. And, people everywhere should have some informational property rights. That there are digital system & cloud stuff involved shouldn't so fundamentally strip people of rights & freedom as it does.
Walking away from Social Media does not necessarily mean walking away from friends and family. Family/social connections existed before S.M. and they will exist after it’s gone. If your friends are not even willing to keep in touch unless it is over a specific BigTech-mediated advertising platform, well, that probably says more about them and about the reality of your relationship.
I detest this with a passion. It's a common refrain, and one that rejects any empathy or sympathy; strikes me as relentless, heartless, and small.
Sure I can keep in touch with friends and family. Even if I walkaway from the active broadcast channels they use, I don't necessarily lose total contact with them. At least some of them.
But they are chatting & sharing in conversations that I will no longer see or be a part of. My walking away has a huge loss to me, is me walking away from gathering spots and places where others habutate. Trying to disregard that loss feels like a gambit I hear a lot from people who are regressive, who want us in a pre-social-media age & think we ought to all walk away. I do not think it's anywhere near that simple, and I think there's huge value that we have entered a connected era, that we do keep in some contact with people from such a wide range of our lives. The serendipity of interacting with someone we otherwise wouldn't, across sometimes such great time and space: that's so neat. I don't want to walk away from that. I want to improve it.
I did not mean it as a personal dig against you. Quitting social media was eye opening for me, and really crystalized who in my life actually gave a shit and who didn't. It helped me to understand how meaningless this surface-level "contact" is where someone just reads an update, hits the like button and moves on. I think a lot of people are confusing "social media contact" with "healthy personal relationships." Reasonable people can disagree of course, but I don't think I really lost anything valuable leaving all that behind.
My own take on [0] is that is way too focused on the technical aspects of the problems
but most of these problems aren't technical in nature.
no amount of 'tech hacking' can solve what are ultimately political (socioeconomic) issues.
these are matters of government policy and such. the law is not about the words used to write it down with, but about the principlies behind, about the intents of the people who wrote it; regardless of who is reading.
but I also consider that "law making" and computing are ultimately solving a very similar problem so do feel free to dismiss what I say
Sivers and Doctorow discuss different problem-solution pairs. Are the problems posed by Doctorow not technically solvable?
Primary Automobile diagnostic codes: Doctorow's hypothetical tech solution already exists in OpenPilot. This is due to a technical standard, CAN bus[0]. The CAN is is easier to access with the government mandate of an ODB connector[1] but that wasn't necessary, just helpful.
Tech independence is, at best an individual solution. Sure, maybe you can be free, but you leave everyone else behind.
What we need are collective solutions. Solutions that work to protect your parents, your children, your friends, your co-workers—everyone—from tech megacorporations whose intention—in some cases openly and explicitly—is to own the world and make everyone pay rent to them for existing in the digital space.
At worst, "tech independence" is a mirage. You may have your own physical server, running an OS you've built from scratch, whose code you've inspected and verified free from infiltration, but you're still communicating over wires owned by those same megacorporations. If too many people walk away and say "not my problem anymore," rather than fighting for better laws and regulations to rein in the massive overreach of big tech companies, we lose the critical mass to be able to continue to fight them.
Which would you rather have:
A world where no one has to pay that digital rent? Where everyone can communicate, network, etc privately and safely, with end-to-end encryption over open protocols?
Or one where you get to play the Lone Hero Standing Alone Against The Evil, while others continue to be abused?
This works for certain things, like email and such - but it only works for very tech-savvy people, not the general consumer, and it stops working at a certain scale: One of the examples from the article is about car manufacturers (who also employ big tech like business methods). Good luck engineering your own car.
Similarly, while I could pay 2-3 times more for a Fairphone or such, it'd be better if tech independence was available to everyone, including for consumer-grade smartphones.
On a related note, I think devices such as Fairphone and Framework laptops prove that even without regulation, "free" (as in freedom) products are already more expensive, you don't need regulations to make that happen.
Honestly, perhaps I’m a purist, but Derek Sivers’ list isn’t sufficient for this type of “tech independence”. You can’t get around having to essentially rent your domain from the registry, unless you set up a registrar yourself. Perhaps you’re fine with using a numeric IP address and you don’t need to engage DNS; then you are still relying on your ISP: Comcast, Centurylink, Starlink, etc. OK, set up your own ISP - it is possible. But your connectivity to other regions of the state/province, country, or globe is fundamentally an _interdependency_ relationship, and pursuing independence is anathema to that.
Not to say that this list isn’t incredibly valuable for most people; and I have a similar “tech independent” setup myself. But it’s definitely not an alternative to the types of solutions that Cory Doctorow puts forth.
Edit… I missed your note about them not being incompatible so this whole comment is a bit of a strawman. But I highly respect the depth of knowledge that Doctorow has on these matters and don’t think he means for government regulation to be an alternative to personal tech agility.
Government has power which we individually lack. It makes sense to harness that power for individual freedom and the common good. The idea that this will be subverted by corporations to fulfill their ends is naive, because they are trying to do that anyway.
We make software for the regulated cannabis space; we work with government agencies. Despite years of folks indside and outside the industry telling these government regulators to NOT use expensive single-use RFID tags -- they've been plowing forwared with it since 2014. The lobbiest and industry had their ear and the indivudual voices of reason couldn't effect change. How can government make good choices for the citizen when their is money in their ear? How can the citizens become a louder voice than the money-in-the-ear?
In one case; we spent like a year with an agency working on design goals for a track-and-trace system. At the end, they had only one conclusive finding -- use algorithimic IDs for a distrubted/federated type system; they even stated in the findings to use 128bit IDs (eg: ULID/UUID). Then when they implemented their system; that wasn't indidcated as a requirement and the other soft-findings from their year long study were completely ignored.
For small to medium size hardware companies that want to make their products easy for customers to repair and tinker with, and at the same time make it difficult for competitors to to copy the design, what are the options?
Adafruit has succeeded here, I think mostly due to the great online community, innovative support, and the large volume of products they offer. But some Kickstarters have been ripped off by Chinese firms, sometimes before the Kickstarter even ships.
I see a few options:
- Build a brand and community around the product(s)
- Lock the firmware down and make tinkering available through the use of an API or scripting (less flexible as firmware cannot be open sourced, and doesn't allow for better repair and tinkering)
- File and enforce patents (expensive)
- Tie to a cloud based service, i.e. Philips Hue (annoying if that's not the main product being sold)
If others have put more thought into this would be happy to hear your thoughts, or read any resources you are aware of.
> Adafruit has succeeded here, I think mostly due to the great online community, innovative support, and the large volume of products they offer.
Yes to all of that. I'd also add that they benefit from being a company that doesn't make you feel like you need a shower after doing business with them.
For me, the reason I keep a Chromium browser around is because government websites sometimes just don’t work on anything other than bog standard Chrome.
Stop buying and using cars. Cars are the worst, most destructive invention in human history. Want global peace? Stop driving cars and burning oil. Want to save the environment? Stop driving cars and burning oil. Want to bring life back into your community? Walk. Want to get healthy and get into shape? Walk. Want to commute? Bike and take public transit. Want to take control of your life and dump these disgusting corporations? Don't buy, don't drive, and don't burn oil.
That is the intractable political problem. Short term pain is unavoidable to get to the long term fix, and voters have no tolerance for short term pain (still measured in decades).
The problem is that cars made it possible for people to live in those sorts of places, cheaply enough.
Not a solution, just an observation. If cars weren't really a thing, people would live in denser communities with walkable services (I include rural communities in this. Pre-car villages are pretty dense, and have, you know, things like shops, etc.).
Is that really true? We were getting around with horses before cars. You have to go back real far to get to a point where we weren't getting around faster than walking
Horses aren't that much faster than walking. Horses can go about 30 miles/day. (That's the reason the Spanish mission towns in the US west were spaced about 30 miles apart.)
That's also about what people can walk in a day (Appalachian Trail through-hikers do about 3 miles per hour).
Now, trained trail horses can go far further in a day, but they require specialized training, food, and care, making them a very expensive plow-horse or cart-horse.
Well taxes on cars and fuel are being paid. So what additions are you talking about?
Also, it's certainly fair to be in favor of something and to have an opinion. It's a different matter to get a bill written and passed by democratic legislators. When it isn't (because let's be real, America is not restructuring it's entire lifestyle), is that fair?
Taxes on fuel are clearly not enough, and not being spent on direct mitigation, which is necessary. The taxes need to, for example, be enough to pay for carbon extraction, plus the cleanup or costs of pollution from tire particulates, etc., etc.
America is totally governmentally dysfunctional and I have no solution (I'm not American, I live in the UK, which is not that much better.)
If you think US suburban living is more detrimental than beneficial, the answer would be whatever level of taxation forces people to give up their suburban and a exurban lifestyles.
"Hey everyone, we need you abandon the single biggest asset you own for pennies on the dollar. Then move into some shit hole apartment building with paper thin walls. Oh no you won't own it, you'll just pay someone else who owns it and will evict you for any reason at all. Don't forget you'll have the added convenience of mass transit on public transit's schedule, including cancellations."
I wonder why people aren't jumping at the chance to move into dense cities?
No, that's not what pricing in externalities is. It'd be taxing at whatever level is necessary to pay for the damages caused, not at the level that forces people not to do the damage.
Nature does not offer the option of “paying for the damages caused”. We cannot fix it or replace it like a fungible good. You either prevent the damage from occurring, or you deal with the consequences.
E.g. the damage to communities from being in isolated residences in unwalkable communities where kids cannot freely play outside has no dollar amount.
>We cannot fix it or replace it like a fungible good.
That rather depends on exactly what we're talking about. CO2 can be stripped from the atmosphere, for example. It's just somewhat expensive.
>E.g. the damage to communities from being in isolated residences in unwalkable communities where kids cannot freely play outside has no dollar amount.
Sure it does. Even deaths have reasonably well established values, legally speaking. And things like expected future medical costs or lost productivity are much more straightforward to assign a value.
Our opinions will have to differ then. There is no number I would accept for the loss kids experience by not having a “right to roam” due to being cordoned by paths for high speed vehicles on all sides.
Probability of success is too low to make it a worthwhile investment. Also, affecting change in zoning/local efforts is useless. It would have to be a federal (and maybe global) level tax on fossil fuels, otherwise the arbitrage opportunities make it ineffective.
But the cost per mile driven isn't. Regardless, pricing in externalities is about preventing market distortion by buyers foisting the costs of goods/services onto other parties, not about directly deciding what people are permitted or able to buy.
So long as you're willing to pay full price for a loaf of bread after we make that move, and you're willing to understand that no-one owes you said bread, and that you will starve when you're unable to afford it.
Obviously, in a quick rejoinder I have not given a complete overview of my opinions on the matter. We obviously need delivery vehicles, electrified where we can. I'm hoping we can find something better than a two-ton box for moving a single person around to arbitrary locations. Small single-person electric vehicles, like an enclosed quad-bike, for example, seem more proportionate.
None of this can be done immediately, but it can be phased-in over a sensible amount of time. Shame we didn't start 30 years ago.
The vaccine improved outcomes but did not immunize you from getting the disease. Plenty of evidence supports this
As others have said, you need to adjust your tone and stop making accusations because the HN community does not like what you say. If you don't again, I will reach out to dang so he can take a look and take appropriate action. Has this happened to you recently and the reason you have a fresh account with strong opinions about the bias of HN?
To the level of destruction they cause the environment, health, and the contribution oil has in starting wars? Honestly, I don't know, but I think it's pretty unlikely to be even close to enough. And those taxes need to be spent on direct mitigation, not just on maintaining infrastructure for cars.
Why does Cory Doctorow hate us so much, and why do we let him get away with this? We invite him to be the speaker at prestigious conferences, give him the keynote slot, just so we can all hear him lecture us on the evils of the companies we all work for, and that pay us so we can feed our family. Forget about Saudi Aramco, I the intellectual property lawyer thinks big tech deserves more mind shares in the big evil corp conspiracy. What needs to be done about this is what I can do about this, decades, I tell you, decades of refactoring intellectual/property/contract law.
... That’s because William Shockley was more or less a Nazi.
... (“The Treacherous Eight,” in tech lore)
This whole section is just a bit off, I feel like cory's political agenda is bending the story. They would have stayed and worked with him but not for him, they tried... They weren't "treacherous" they were traitorous.
As for the whole non compete MA vs CA... well the boston area is loaded with all sorts of labs, doing all sorts of drug dev still. The non competes make more sense in that industry, where projects take years, and you dont want anything to slip out before your patent is filed. Bad for one kind of tech, good for another kind... it was a choice.
Cory used to be great, he was fresh and pithy. Hes got a Stalman like zelosy now, without the monotonic message.
Yeah, thats logical. He sees things getting worse and sees he was too reasonable in the past. "Maybe if I am more zealous and less reasonable, I might be able to be part of a less-worse future."
It's a biased way of seeing things, but very understandable.
A freedom that I desire more greatly is a durable liberation from having to see any more Cory Doctorow articles. Remember 20 years ago when this guy was telling everyone that Microsoft was going to use the TPM to prevent you from installing Linux? Did that happen?
These default firmware settings will prevent "third-party"-MSFT-signed EFI binaries from loading - gee, I wonder why that distinction is suddenly necessary, too? :)
In my view and experience, the threat model that Secure Boot and similar schemes to establishing a root of trust to assure that "noone (esp. not the owner) has tampered with this device" tries to protect against is VERY rarely relevant (to the owner of said device). The times that I have been inconvenienced or even prevented by that stuff from getting the software I, the owner of the device, want installed onto hardware that I paid good money for at a store/vendor have been numerous, however.
Did you or do you work for Big Tech? Not asking to doxx, but to surface potential bias. I can guess from your comment history, but attempting to assume most charitable interpretation and intent.
I donate to the EFF because they pay Cory, and Cory attempts to contribute towards keeping Big Tech at bay. Let's not argue about Big Tech intent here; they would conquer the world if they could. The evidence around this thesis is...robust.
It is fascinating how the "corporations are people" ideological bent has been internalized by so many. You see discussions all the time in these comments where people argue that "is" implies "ought" when it comes to the strategies and tactics implemented by (the people within) these powerful companies.
I belonged to the EFF for many years before they went Full Doctorow. I no longer support either EFF or EPIC because they have gone totally off the rails.
That's certainly an interesting view. Can you expand on that? What were they doing before that they're not doing now, or doing more of under Doctorow's influence?
In my opinion, Cory is a treasure, a rare voice that consistent advocates for a development where humanity at large has the freedom to pioneer & advance the open electronic frontiers.
Why are you asserting it "wasn't going to happen"?
The whole Paladium trusted boot/"known OS environment"/etc stuff could very easily have gone down the path of "This hardware only boots Windows." Secure Boot has been a pain for a while, though at least you can turn it off.
Nobody at the time (as far as OEMs) seemed to care the slightest bit about Linux, so the concern of "Only boots a measured Windows install, for your own security" seemed rather worth worrying about.
Palladium is coming again, and this time for real, with Windows 11 and its default "Secure"/Measured Boot (de facto) requirement - and all the infrastructure in place for Internet endpoints to attest that their peers have actually been booted that way.
> A freedom that I desire more greatly is a durable liberation from having to see any more Cory Doctorow articles.
You know, it's really easy to just ignore articles that you're not interested in. Yet you chose to respond. Why?
And your accusation - he was wrong about something 20 years ago - even if true, so what? I've been wrong about a thing or two in 20 years. And, while I know that pretty much everyone else also has been, I don't keep track of what people said 20 years ago so that I can point to it to show the world how wrong that person was.
This almost seems like it's personal for you. If so, why?
Noticed this that stood out;
> "emotional (or financial) strain of knowing ..."
As an astute observation about which few care to "psychologise". Namely, that beyond simple profit, the blind reason of markets, and business just being business, there's a lot of plain bloody-minded egotism out there in the corporate world. There's folks who will destroy value and opportunity, not because it's "competitive" or "necessary", but because it pleases them. And they throw their toys out of the pram if anyone threatens their lunch or questions their entitlement to have it.
We don't acknowledge or talk enough about the /emotional/ landscape in the tech world. That is a serious blind-spot when you have people like Musk and Bezos in the mix.