RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@ariadne/117579594140229264
If free software is not about ethics, then what the fuck is its point.
0 Boosts
0 Likes
What @Gargron says ☝️
One can use free software because of the ethics, or because it's free. But never forget: it is only free BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING ETHICS!
@Gargron @sstephenson The reply is illuminating.
"i went back and read the gnu manifesto and the sections on philosophy at the fsf website, something i haven't done for quite some time. i was convinced I would find something to support the idea that the fsf's mission, while focused on software, is in support of the greater mission of human liberty. but you are right. i was gravely mistaken."
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-11/msg00197.html
@acf @Gargron @sstephenson The FSF/GNU has generally always been more in favour of having an alliance of people that set aside their differences to fight for something they have a common interest in. Others decide to have a more concrete, holistic worldview that relates their specific concerns to broader values. I think both the diverse and uniform approaches are valid and respectable, they just have different strategic advantages and costs.
@pkal @Gargron @sstephenson I agree, sort of. It's a noble goal to say we can put aside politics, or religion and focus on software, but I think that somewhere down at the bottom there has to be a line we can all agree on, where its not politics, its basic humanity. The hard part, of course, is collectively deciding where that line is. Are LLMs "politics" like your feelings on low tax, or high tax, or maybe gun control? Or are they ethics like your position on slavery or child abuse.
@acf @pkal @Gargron @sstephenson I agree. No slavery. I'm on board.
Do we make a global purity test questionnaire that everyone has to fill out before they can contribute? And the list of prohibited activities and unsavory political positions will be maintained by who, exactly?
Or no list, but each maintainer decides if they find out something repulsive about someone? So each project says what they accept and has a form where you can rat out contributors?
Not sure how to implement this.
@ericphelps @acf @pkal @sstephenson What a terrible take! Yes, if you find out that one of your contributors has a history of misconduct, you can and should reject their future contributions. If their patch disclaims it was made with slave labour, you are fully capable of rejecting it on those grounds! Just because you can't know everything about everyone in advance doesn't mean that nothing should be done! It's perfectly reasonable and possible to just react according to a set of principles!
@Gargron @acf @pkal @sstephenson A very libertarian position, to make individual choices😉. I can't disagree with that even though I didn't list it as one of my alternatives. It doesn't have the large social impact most other people are advocating for, but you're absolutely right: Regardless of what everyone else is doing or considers acceptable, we must make our own decisions.
@Gargron @acf @pkal @sstephenson I think software licenses (like GNU) are an imperfect example of the global test. Many people refuse to deal with certain licenses because they don't agree with its the policies.
And I think the Fediverse is an imperfect example of individual project maintainers deciding. Server maintainers decide who can join and what other servers to block. And I can report anyone I think should be blocked.
I don't think either of these is a terrible take. But whatever.
@Gargron It's recognition that this shit is all deeply personal and subjective.
Sometimes people in power don't think Jews get to do science.
Some people in power don't think that Palestians can argue against genocide on campus.
No-one allowed Denmark to publish a political cartoon. When Yale wrote up the investigation, they weren't allowed to publish the cartoon.
They're all doing it for their own moral reasons.
@Gargron Ethics are central, but I like using it more than I like using commercial software. It tends to be better, and you don't have to worry about a company taking it away or breaking it.
@Gargron Depends on who defines the ethics. I like free software and, personally, I would like to see everything released under more permissive licenses which also includes usage in commercial software without attribution.
@Gargron How is that a ‘yes’..
“We could shoot ourself in the foot but we could also choose not too. We chose yes.”
@stux @Gargron Because for some forms of libertarian “freedom” mainly refers to property and what _they_ can do it with, not what people in general can do. He further goes on to state “it would split the community” if they refused to accept slave created software, as if a ruling that accepting such software isn’t devisive in the first place.
@Gargron Eugen Rochko being on the right side of history counter: ∞
@Gargron for me free software has been, can we make a world where everyone has free, same access to software? and an ecosystem where if you don’t like what you see, you can change it.
but if the software you use is built off of trash morals why use it?
@mrkeen @Gargron @jpeisach IF I were to assume this is not slavery normalizing (and an on the nose example of why so many boosters are supremacist mindset adjacent) AND take it as a good faith argument... the analogy would be: if my neighbor forces their slave to bake bread and insists I serve that bread at a gathering for friends and family, why don't I have the right to refuse that bread and bar my neighbor from attending?
@mrkeen the response was directed at your comments
you gonna stop relying on trigonometry if you find out Pythagoras was way into slavery?
if your neighbour has slaves, do you go over to his house and kill him?
Full context chain is visible publicly without logging in: https://mastodon.social/@mrkeen/117581759652300770
@shom @Gargron @jpeisach Right, thanks. I think I see what I was going for, and probably fucked up tbh.
Gargron posted a screenshot of a rant about LLMs which used slavery as a rhetorical device. Not only must we not use LLM ourselves, but we have to turn down labour from those who do.
I wanted to know if we turn down basic mathematics too, but he dodged the question.
If this thing is really as bad as slavery, well, what are supposedly moral folks doing about it?
Not only must we not use LLM ourselves, but we have to turn down labour from those who do.
You don't have to do anything. You also don't have to question choices that others make, using extreme hypotheticals like "if your neighbour has slaves, do you go over to his house and kill him?" Just like I don't have to respond, but I chose to by providing an analogy that was, in my assessment, closer to the issue being discussed:
if my neighbor forces their slave to bake bread and insists I serve that bread at a gathering for friends and family, why don't I have the right to refuse that bread and bar my neighbor from attending?
The point is, we both exercised our choice.
I wanted to know if we turn down basic mathematics too, but he dodged the question.
Again assuming this was asked in good faith, we can't "turn down basic mathematics" because it's a property of reality, baked into the physics of the universe. However, we could choose to not name those principles after individuals.
If this thing is really as bad as slavery, well, what are supposedly moral folks doing about it?
People are choosing a whole range of reactions from actively pushing back against LLMs, not using LLMs, not voluntarily using LLMs, not boosting LLMs, not accepting LLMs as an inevitability that has to permeate every aspect of life.
The point is choice and agency; not submitting to the talking points of big tech, engaging in whataboutism, submitting to a false sense of inevitability, and not outsourcing all critical thinking to the machines run by broligarchs. It is a choice.
@Gargron That’s the whole difference between free software and open source, we can thank Eric Raymond…
@Gargron Lately it seems to be about free patches for corporate infrastructure.