But it's also an issue with Free Software. The 'freedoms' aren't framed as consumer rights but more as freedoms to more fully participate in every layer of the software marketplace.

If they had framed them as consumer rights, then they'd have to address why the consumer rights of those who can code are more important that others (e.g. data protection and privacy).

But they didn't, so they don't.

@baldur Strongly disagree with this.

They aren't framed specifically as "consumer" rights because purchase isn't implied in distribution, but they're all _user_ rights: the user has the right to run her software, the user has the right to inspect her software, etc.

I feel like contemporary concerns like data protection and privacy aren't addressed because the four freedoms etc. long predate the existence of ecosystems where it's even possible for them to be problematic.

@Tak

Data and file formats have been an issue for consumers right from the start of software and the web is 28 years old. It isn't a new issue, just one that's been exacerbated in recent years.

And they are user rights that only a tiny fraction of the user base will ever have the skills to use. A fraction that is also much more likely to be active producers in the software marketplace.

Consumer rights aren't dependent on purchase. A free car still has to fulfil safety standards.

@baldur It's somewhat disingenuous to call what existed 28 years ago "the web", but the free software definition predates that by 5 years.

A free software license guarantees the user the right to run, inspect, modify, and redistribute the software. It's true that modification may require software development capability, but how is that different than creative commons licensing for prose, visual art, or music?

@baldur If software is going to be required to conform to the equivalent of cars' safety standards, shouldn't that be a part of the warranty in any case? Why should the distribution license be involved?

@Tak FLOSS isn't just the license. It's communities governed by organisations who are built on what they clearly present as overarching moral frameworks for software as a field.

So, it isn't just about warranty. It's about having a convincing story for how to protect the safety and well-being of software users as a whole, as opposed to only those who code.

@baldur So... free software isn't the thing defined by the free software definition?

I'm all about protecting users, but I dispute the assertion that a lack of focus on user protections in free software communities can be blamed for the state of the ecosystem today, particularly since ~100% of the prime offenders are proprietary applications. (More or less by necessity, since motivated users would just remove user-hostile functions from a free application.)

@Tak Free software is a community. Otherwise it's just one person with their code.

FLOSS has been _the_ key enabler of the web tech industry over the past 20 years. Most of these companies—good or bad—wouldn't exist without it.

Even if the user could just remove user-hostile functions from the source code, they rarely can remove them from the software that's running on the server. From most users' perspectives, the free software freedoms aren't meaningful rights.

@baldur I would say that mastodon is an obvious example of free server software benefiting users who will never look at the source nor run a server.

If you're asserting that users only interact with software over the network, ignore the existence of mastodon and similar projects, ignore the existence of proprietary web technologies, and ignore the benefits Facebook's users have gotten because Facebook was able to exercise software freedoms, then I can see why you might feel this way.

@Tak Yeah, we're just talking past each other now.

@Tak We teach writing to children in school.

The point of highlighting the age of the web is that FLOSS should have come up with a convincing story for data and privacy years ago. This isn't a new problem and people are justified in feeling that FLOSS organisations and communities aren't concerned with what many feel is the major consumer rights issue with modern software.

@Gargron There isn't an easy solution to any of this. The first step is acknowledging that many disadvantaged users are badly served by the free software model.

Closed source software is forced to work to conform to regulatory demands all the time (eCommerce, child welfare, accessibility, privacy). The fact that this process doesn't work on a lot of free software projects is part of the issue. In fact, anti-regulation sentiment is pretty darn common in the FLOSS developer communities I've seen.

@baldur @Gargron

Baldur, thanks for posting this. Lotsa food for thought. I remain a big open source software fan, though.

Both of you, take a look at the P2PFoundation's programme which evolved from open source practices but also includes what they call a "Partner State" that can guide practices to protect vulnerable people and environments. And tell me (a) what you disagree with and (b) could it include both of your perspectives?
https://primer.commonstransition.org/1-short-articles/1-1-what-is-a-commons-transition
http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Partner_State

@Gargron @baldur

Of course, my comment assumes the P2PF programme being enacted somewhere. Which might happen in cities here and there, but not larger scale for awhile...

@bhaugen @Gargron @baldur Another approach from the "corporate" world might be Premium. [0][1] Everyone is encouraged to join their collective and to participate in decisions, also their customers/consumers. [2] Has any large FOSS project ever experimented with something like a users council or some form of grassroots democracy?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium-Cola (not exactly the best wiki article, check the references)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eF9V0-PORM (sorry, in german)
[2] https://www.premium-cola.de/kollektiv

@fap @baldur @Gargron

https://docs.opencoopecosystem.net/ has as one of its main user groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faircoop

They would like one of their next user groups to be http://www.mutualaidnetwork.org/

@baldur @Gargron

A couple of other comments after thinking about this more:

> Closed source software is forced to work to conform to regulatory demands all the time

That is not about the source code, it is about a company that deploys it. The company is regulated, not the code. That would be true of the company even if it was using copy-left software.

@Gargron @baldur

> anti-regulation sentiment is pretty darn common in the FLOSS developer communities I've seen.

True. But there is also a lot of unhappiness in those developer communities about how to make a living doing it and the burdens of software maintenance. I think they need a better economic system. Multi-stakeholder cooperatives would help.

@tomas That wasn't the feeling I was left with but I can see how the piece could leave you with that impression.

I read it as describing a bias against non-coders and systemic issues that affect marginalised groups more than others.

@tomas Oh, yeah. Definitely.

@tomas @baldur Yeah, I'm feeling that valid (but possibly exaggerated) concerns about power dynamics in #FOSS / #FLOSS are being used in this piece as a means of justifying a sense that marginalized persons are entitled to having code written for them rather than for marginalized persons to produce code.

@bthall @tomas One problem is that often with closed source projects governed by a single legally liable entity, marginalised persons _are_ entitled to having code written for them (accessibility regs being a classic example).

Telling people to contribute code is often a no-win situation. Even when they do have the capability many don't have the time or resources. And when they do, their contributions often don't get accepted because, well, their needs are marginalised and low priority.

@bthall @tomas Then to top it all off, if they get fed up and fork the project to try to prioritise their needs, they are demonised and lambasted for fragmenting or harming 'the community'.

@baldur @tomas I suspect that there might be a degree of bias here when considering that a good might be provided by either a FOSS project or a private enterprise that's bound by law to provide X: suppose that if/when the good is provided at all by the private enterprise, it will have all of the features that satisfy marginalized persons, whereas if the good is provided by a FOSS project it might only have a subset of those features *initially*.

@baldur @tomas It may indeed be the case that marginalized persons may never gain the full set of features of the good that would fully satisfy them, or it may take a long while, but recognize that as rights of contribution and distribution are retained in FOSS, the probability that they will be added is much higher than otherwise (say, if a private enterprise was negligent or just not-diligent in catering to marginalized people, which is common despite laws).

@bthall @tomas

From the perspective of a regular user the difference between a closed and open source web service is negligible. Both in their tendency to disregard the needs of the marginalised and in the ability of the average user to affect the project.

The only big diff is that closed source is often more easily targeted by regulatory action and lawsuits.

FOSS _should_ be better. But instead, as a community, it has mostly just reimplemented the consumer-oriented issues of closed source

@pkra Yeah, loads of questions, not very many concrete answers.

But people have been asking these questions for years. I remember a lecturer of mine, Bob Hughes, just stating flat out back in 2000 that given how FLOSS was structured, it would inevitably get co-opted by capitalism.

I was very annoyed with him at the time but hindsight is 20/20, I guess.

@Irick No, it's like saying that unless you can farm you have limited rights as a consumer of a locally farmed good.

The freedoms of the user to use and modify the software do a poor job of protecting their needs and rights in the modern software ecosystem.

Closed source software is marginally better as they can more easily be targeted by regulation.

The situation sucks a lot for software users, both closed or open source, & FLOSS devs don't seem interested in addressing the problem.

@baldur

Your rights are just as limited as the developer's.

Your (in)ability to act on those rights doesn't remove them from you.

Your right to copy and modify your software remains independent of your personal means to do so. Just like your right to trade and modify a book remains despite your (in)ability to read or write. The usefulness of your contributions are a matter of opinion.

Conversely the idea that labor can be forced in order to oblige a personal preference does remove rights.

@baldur
If illiteracy is a problem, it's not because of the structure of first sale doctrine, nor is it because of the creative commons.

@Irick The fact that you are choosing to describe the needs of marginalised communities as 'personal preferences' tells me that we are unlikely to ever agree on this.

@baldur
The fact you think it's moral to force labor is more telling of our fundamental disagreements TBH.

@HerraBRE Yeah, that’s an excellent point.