CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@aburtch @pluralistic I think Kagi uses the same index without enshittification.

You have to pay with money instead of with attention and brain cycles.

@randahl https://sigmoid.social/@spdrnl/116046800364076273

@hamishb @lispi314 @pluralistic

Third, I think is to better explain what differentiates innovation from plain land grabs and law breaking.

Palantir comes to mind. No ontology, no innovation, a mediocre systems integrator. Yes cruelty and yes probably privacy law breaking. To rich to sue, and with the blessing of Thiel.

The AI crew are mass law breakers too. Imagine in a while, no real AI and completely broken copyright and privacy laws.

2/2

@hamishb @lispi314 @pluralistic Well, my understanding is that these laws were forced onto the #EU with the threat of tariffs.

So these tariffs for the #EU are here anyway. Voicing this state of affairs as Cory is doing is the first step.

The second step I think is educating people and foremost politicians of the detrimental effects of hanging on to these laws.

1/2

@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic

Yes, so open standards would be ideal.

I am curious where RISC-V will be taken all of us.

@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic So what you would like to say is: Apple is an exception, it is not closed, and it has a future?

That is .o.k.

And there still is the larger argument.

@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic Perhaps specifically Apple was not a good example. And you do get the point, right?

@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic What I think is missing is the notion of positive and negative freedom.

Yes, I can buy a Mac, and yes I can use Swift. That is positive freedom.

If I open the Mac, then someone can come after me. That is a lack of negative freedom.

@pluralistic What is missing from the discussion is I think the notion of positive and negative freedom.

Paraphrasing: one is free to but a Mac and do some innovation. Positive freedom.

If you open the Mac up and start prodding, someone is likely to come after you. That is a lack of negative freedom.

Negative freedom is a precondition for positive freedom. As I understand it, the goal of negative freedom is to enable positive freedom.

@lispi314 @pluralistic Rolling on, this is probably directly related to Europe's lagging.

There is enough technical talent to make innovation happen. Software engineers are willing and able.

Still there is this invisible wall. Yes, money, yes, a culture of land, steel and oil.

And also: you never know when you trip a patent wire. And few European investors can survive that. #EU

There is this uncomfortable vacuum.

@lispi314 @pluralistic

It also makes it useless to write manuals or educational materials to do that.

No cool demonstrations in class: here is how to hack your airtag.

What is in the hands of pupils, triggers their interest.

That is where it starts I think.

@lispi314 @pluralistic @mattw

Oh my!

Summarizing, the point is not that U.S. tech platforms do not innovate at all.

Making that the point is for me a straw man in disguise.

@klaremitte Am I reading this well? How strange! Who are they serving?

@mattw @pluralistic @lispi314 Yes, 4. And there are 8 billion citizens in the world.

I think the parallel thread with LisPi supplements this thread.

@lispi314 @pluralistic There is a related debate about trademarks and re-mix culture.

If the world of young people is filled with brands, and it is forbidden to resample these brands in visual or any other form of expression, than a particular type of creative prison is being created.

Being able to repurpose what is there, is the essence of creativity. And it is creativity that drives innovation.

Sure one can splurge on a RaspBerry Pi and all. And that is not given to everyone.

@lispi314 @pluralistic

Yes, so this points towards lessened autonomy.

It also points towards a restriction on what one can learn or do, or use for learning or doing.

The crazy dude or gal showing how to improve a phone or gadget will not be there.

So less positive empowering exemplars.

Stretching it: it makes citizens into un-empowered consumers.

@mattw @pluralistic It's still big parties dictating the progress, in line with their own interests, no?

And, as @lispi314 mentioned, there is still all these patents and digital laws flying around.

One swallow doesn't make a summer?

@lispi314 @pluralistic For me, the exact ramifications are hard to assess.

I have been in tech for a long time, and still do not fully grasp this.

Probably the deviousness is adding to the incomprehensibility. As in: if it would really make any sense, people would sooner recognize is.

It would be good to make this more explicit. What are these agreements exactly preventing?

@clarablackink @pluralistic Yes, greed and control rather than deeper technical savviness.

It is all well marketed, no?

So well, that we risk losing sight of the true potential.

@dangillmor Intimidation pure and simple.