breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?

Adonay Felipe Nogueira adfeno at
Thu Jan 18 13:38:28 UTC 2018

Using technological measures to purposely prevent someone to use
non-free software, or to connect to sites not friendly to free/libre
software, if and only if for the sake of "keeping software freedom" is
indeed problematic. This paragraph must not be confused with:

- not recommending a given item;

- recommending another instead;

- refusing to give support/help upon finding out that the involved item
  is non-free;

- disabling or modifying features that would by default recommend a
  non-free item.

In free/libre software projects this kind of blockage tend to happen not
by purpose (/e.g./: GNU Linux-libre), and so are considered a bug.

2018-01-18T13:13:51+0000 Mat Witts wrote:
> I agree that is is not axiomatic under all conditions, and is only
> salient in restricted circumstances - for example when FS adviocates
> attempt to manipulate computer users towards software they believe is
> better (ie/ free software) or prevent people connecting to proprietary
> software (eg. like the sort of javascript etc. on Facebook).
> My complaint was about the obvious problem of FS advocates seeking to
> manipulate computer users, albeit in the name of freedom through the
> use of plugins etc.
> The comparison you make I believe is 100% apt in terms of the right
> for a human person to sell themselves into slavery if they wish, yes.
> I think there is an element of this in many work and life contexts -
> at least in terms of employment contracts and in the social contract
> where we agree to follow the laws of the state even if we do not agree
> with them on the grounds that if we don't, we may well be punished.
> Where you miss the point I think is that I am not suggesting that
> people should have the right to deny others rights and freedoms, but
> rather in pursuing the just cause of software freedom, some activists
> go to far and inflate this well-intentioned and important work into
> manipulation of computer users, which is to deny the rights and
> freedoms of others to connect to Facebook for example.
> This is evident through the sorts of technologies discussed in this
> thread, in preventing people from connecting to proprietary software
> in an automated fashion.
> I say this because I feel strongly if FS advocates give up the moral
> issue of computer user freedom and software developer freedom in their
> advocacy, then that is a self-defeating activity.
> In contrast to your view, I believe that unless the FS movement treats
> rights and freedoms as something that MUST be negotiated individually,
> computer user freedom and free software will be unobtainable for the
> the individuals who are being manipulated into using software (free or
> otherwise) that isn't respecting their freedoms as much as is claimed.
> I'm not a staunch individualist, because I believe the rights of the
> human person in some circumstances must fold into what is best for
> society, especially in areas of public health and education and so
> forth, and the options of the individual to opt out of freedom is a
> fundamental prerequisite for both liberal and not-so-liberal education
> programs everywhere.

- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
  instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato:
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.

More information about the Discussion mailing list