We are here because a overwhelming majority of people accept to subject themselves to freedom-oppressing software. If a significant number of people rejected it, that would lower the burden for the rest to also reject it.

Stallman was right.

Stallman was right, but some times I think this is bigger than just software. This is about power, and software is just one of many tools. Stallman was right, but I wonder if his ideas would have resonated more widely if they had been framed in terms of power.

▲

phyzix5761 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But what if most people don't actually care about these freedoms? What if we're only a small minority? Should we force our views on others through laws and regulations or should we, as free individuals, choose not to use these applications and let others make their own free choices?

	▲	mjevans an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Most people don't really want freedom of speech. Until they REALLY _NEED_ freedom of speech.

▲

GlacierFox 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

State an open source alternative so I can explain to you why the masses think it's crap.

▲

userbinator 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

MSN Messenger had tons of open-source clients back when it was the popular IM network, and it was a weekend or two of work to write a client for it.

▲

flexagoon 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

While I agree a lot of open source messenger services have terrible UX, I don't think "the masses" care about it that much. What matters is what everyone else is using. People are using Snapchat or Instagram Messenger and I haven't seen a single person who likes the UX of those services - they just use it and put up with hatred for it because that's what all their friends use.

▲

uriegas 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think this is purely first mover advantage. We get stuck with bad products simply because those were the first products on the market. It is difficult to change them once everyone uses them. The same applies to the adoption of IT on the banking industry. Now we are stuck with COBOL and systems that are hard to migrate without damaging the economy.

▲

bfkwlfkjf 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Open source has nothing to do with this conversation.

	▲	nothrabannosir 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’ll bite : how does open source have nothing to do with a comment discussing “freedom oppressing software” and “Stallman”? To be honest, I couldn’t imagine a word more related than "open source". Isn’t that junction literally the acronym F/LOSS?