Proprietary Technology Compared To Consumer Products

We in the progressive community often say that technology has to be open source. What is the analogy of that compared to a consumer product?

This is kind of like comparing electromagnetic effects to gravity, where the details of latter is neither experienced directly nor intuitive to the average person, while the effects of gravity is commonly understood. However, the forces are very different in both scales (electromagnetic force is many orders of magnitude above gravity for bodies of similar dimensions).

Conditions

• We require the design data of the hardware - on one hand for security, and on another, for societal progress (so that the technology can be built easier)
• We require the source code of the software - for security, for modifiability (so that one doesn't have to rewrite the whole program just to change one aspect to their liking), for portability, for societal progress (so the methods contained in the software can be used for universal benefit)
• We require that these be provided without a restrictive license - so that any modifications we make can be shared publicly for universal benefit,
  • The problem with this is usually that things are sold for a profit, and if it is provided freely, someone else may sell it with a better marketing overshadowing you (which breaks the argument that customers will prefer the original for the leadership), then use their profits to develop their technology better and put you at a disadvantage.
  • But this argument falls apart with a copyleft license so that any modifications are provided back rather than restricted. So even if the new party has a better development team, the benefits are contributed back to the society. Gradually, this means that the technology will be able to be delivered by a team more cheaply than the first developer, which ultimately makes the technology cheaper.
  • The ultimate goal is however that technology becomes cheaper without artificial limitations due to greed.
  • But if greed is what we are solving, then even when technology is being first developed, money shouldn't be entering the scene. But rather, we will be ensuring that all people can access the system in harmony without anyone feeling left out due to lack of capacity.
  • Also, since copyleft licenses became necessary due to capitalism, in the new philosophy, we can do away with licenses entirely.

Arguments

About needing the design or source code

• You can't access the internals of the computer
• You can't also access the internals of a bottle, but our purpose of drinking from it is served?

Well, it depends on two factors:
1. A bottle is not normally "artificially limited"
2. If you are required to have access, such as a means to clean the bottle, that should be available.

Technology often takes care of the second aspect. If you don't like a device with a specific feature, just buy something else! Not everyone wants an access to that.

The problem with saying it's a free market, you can do whatever you want

Now, on one hand, this is misdirecting the argument, because if we consider how capitalism runs the world, the flow of economy has an effect on each individual, because the money that should benefit the society could end up in the hands of the people who are making shallow things to exploit people's desires, all in the name of "free market".

Of course, if I simply criticize this like that, it's like I'm pointing out a problem with no real solution. People will say that you can't just dictatorship everything (in reference to communist regimes), because then the ones in power will now exploit everyone as opposed to people having the freedom to choose how they can be cunning, which is better, or else it will be anarchy if we don't choose a decentralized system like capital.

I agree with that. I don't think that if a few people are in disagreement, an assigned person being in charge can somehow fairly judge the scene. However, capital starts by exploiting individuals and it's no good. Also, there is the problem of inheritance, even if everything starts out normally, so if anyone exploits others, the benefits he reaped doesn't end there, it's passed on to his children and so on.

My solution requires a change from a philosophical level. That, is something I'll be working on. The idea is to recognize the connectedness of society as opposed to thinking in terms of individual benefit, so that exploiting one another seems like eating your own arms when hungry. So when a problem arises, instead of trying to find the blame and judge with a punishment, we try to solve the problem, understand it, and try to prevent it from occurring in the future with this understanding, since that is in everyone's best interest.

With that in mind, even without drastically altering your mindset to be complete altruists, you can focus on building a better world, and do away with "artificial limitations".

The problem with artificial limitations

To elaborate on the "artificial limitation", you never artificially limit something without a reason. The usual reasons are to keep the design a secret, which I've explained is wrong, and to ensure that people buy newer products without having the option to keep using the older product, which could've very well been reused had it not been artificially limited.

This is not only worse in terms of ethics, as we at least had some genuine reason in the former case, it is also harmful for the environment directly, as new products are more waste of resources than quality products. This maybe justified as the world has enough resource to do whatever you want, but that's not true as millions of people are starving right now. This is simply an argument similar to climate change denial, where one believes their actions have no effect on the surroundings.

By avoiding artificial limitations, we can do more with less, and stop chasing new and new shiny toys, which simply harm us and others in the long run.