The payoff comes at the very end, "Do your own computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake."
Nah, I'll pay someone to do compute (and maintain the API, infrastructure, etc.) for me. I'm a huge free software advocate, but in the SaaS situation, I'm not paying for a program, I'm paying for results.
As such, it's immaterial how I get those results--they could have a roomful of people arranging bits by hand. (What if that's how they were doing it? Would that represent a loss of freedom, if I were paying people to shuffle bits by hand?)
This particular essay seems like the RMS take on that old saw, "if all you have is a hammer..."
I expect there are ways to make something both resistant to harassment and resistant to censorship.
Like, suppose a network was designed with those as its primary 2 goals. I don't think that would be totally unachievable.
DewDrop (I might have gotten the name mixed up with another thing by neyer) and related things seem not inconsistent with decentralized things, and they seem like they could be used for combating harassment. (e.g. by setting a minimum relative reputation for people sending one things in order to see the things, people who were more likely to be targeted could set a higher minimum, while people who no one knew could set a minimum of 0, or even something slightly negative. Someone who wanted to see everything sent to them could set it to the minimum allowed number.) (the relative reputation is constructed based on the individual, and does not rely on an authority thing to work).
Copying the design of Twitter and Facebook. What a great way to make a good first impression and to respect the copyright the GNU project cares so much about. I can't imagine a better way to show everyone just how amazing you are.
The free software community must be truly happy to have such amazing supporters on their side.
Of course you can copy the product as such, that's fine by me and I think even necessary.
They've gone far beyond that here though, copying not just the product but significant parts of the design. The Quitter thing looks almost exactly like Twitter. If they'd copied the website of a bank like this, it would be considered phishing.
This is well beyond copying an idea or a few design concepts.
> One would think Europe would change immigration law to encourage people who would naturally have some affinity or ties to the region.
No offense but this affinity people especially from the US seem to have appears from this side like nothing more than a weird fetish driven by nothing more than fantasy. Especially for Germany this is incredibly weird because there is often a certain pride associated with being "German" that would get you considered a nazi in Germany.
If you're well educated and can get a job in Europe, immigrating should be quite easy already. I see no reason to make it easy for people just because some ancestor happened to be from Europe.
The trip to Europe is incredibly dangerous, it's much safer for the young men to come first to find a way to help the rest of the family to flee more safely. Germany until recently had a program specifically for that.
Additionally men are drafted by the Syrian government. In other words there are areas in Syria that are fairly safe for children, women and the elderly that aren't all that safe to be in, if you're a men and have no means to escape the draft.
All of that combined means that you have a bias towards male refugees, especially when it comes to images you see in the media of refugees fleeing with boats.
Feminism wasn't always as intersectional as it is now. For a long time it was dominated by white women who wanted more equality ignoring and sometimes even opposing equality for people and women of color. Suffragettes are a very good example of this problem.
There are a few people now that feel a similar thing is happening in the tech industry right now as well. In that diversity is promoted only in so far as it helps white women but not any other underrepresented groups.
Yeah, whereas now it's dominated by white women who get book deals off the back of their supposed anti-racist credentials, whereas the black activists who they got their arguments from (and watered them down, naturally) languish unmentioned in obscurity. There's a a lot of complicated history and anger behind the distrust of white feminist activists, most of which I don't think ever reached the mainstream media in any meaningful form, going right up to probably the present day even.
To further extend from the suffrage movement, it is important to note that minorities (men & women) didn't legally have the right to vote until the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
So Sanchez has a point in claiming that historical precedence has shown that "discrimination" was thought to have ended after the suffrage movement when it wasn't until many years later that minorities were legally secured the right to vote. Hence the hierarchy is that white women are the "next-in-line" when it comes to diversity before any other type of minority group.
White women make progress towards equality faster than any other group that's being discriminated.
The argument is that instead of focusing on the core issue that discrimination is inherently bad and needs to be fought against, white women put the focus specifically on them. This means other groups are ignored until white women have achieved their goals until a new conversation can be started.
I'm not sure whether other groups would have made progress sooner without this problem but it's a possiblity and that would make white women significant barrier.
I admit it's hard to go from that further to biggest barrier but I don't think one should discard that notion too easily. "Moderates" pushing for some bad compromise is the worse is better of politics. MLK famously considered white moderates to be a bigger issue than racist groups at one point.
That seems to be humanity in a nutshell - fuck you, got mine.
Most of us are not altruistic enough to put other people ahead of us and ours. Self > family > clan > tribe > race > everybody else. However you choose to segment your identity up and what characteristics you base it upon, that's generally the hierarchy of fucks you give about other people.
If that limit can't be broken, it would massively slow down space travel though. Our civilization currently consumes more resources than can be replenished. What if other civilizations have the same problem and can't travel to other planets before resource starvation comes in?
Traveling to other planets is relatively easy; in our system it takes just a few years using the cheapest chemical boosters + ion engines. A nuclear rocket engine (quite feasible) would probably lower the travel time noticeably. Communication delays in the range of a few hours maximum are not a significant problem either.
It's traveling to other star systems what is hard.
OTOH we live in a relatively sparsely populated neck of galactic woods; thicker clusters of stars exist with much shorter interstellar distances. Conditions there are usually deadly for us, though.
Indeed and wouldn't they have been "interrupted" they very well might have developed further towards space travel or is there anything to suggest that they wouldn't have progressed further technologically?