| ▲ | Aurornis 2 hours ago |
| > corporations got onboard both as OSM users and stakeholders, and then some idealistic anti-capitalistic people have asked why they should contribute if the map can benefit corps, Anecdotally, I’ve had a lot of experiences like this with newer generations of people on topics like open source software or community projects: They’ve been trained, usually by a social media niche, to believe that the only good fight is to actively harm corporations. Their idea of the world is a very clear black and white contrast with people on one side and corporations on the other. Such a clean separation of the world only exists in ideas they get from social media and movies. Encountering a project like OSM or an open source project where the largest users (and for OSS, maybe the largest contributors) are people involved with corporations doesn’t fit into their worldview, so they file it in the “corporate” side of the divide and dislike it. |
|
| ▲ | soperj an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| > They’ve been trained, usually by a social media niche, to believe that the only good fight is to actively harm corporations. Or maybe they just feel that corporations are actively trying to harm them and this is the logical response? I don't think that's unfair at this point. |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This is another theme I notice in this same cohort: It is not permissible to even suggest that they’re doing anything wrong. Any time someone highlights behaviors or beliefs that have problems or are inconsistent, someone will pop up and blame that on the corporations, too. So even when these people have turned into a broken clock about being anti-corporate to the point that they’re anti-open-projects, someone will always come along to explain why we everything is the fault of corporations. A normal working class person can not be faulted for their beliefs in this model, because every fault will be transformed into something that can be blamed on a corporation. Personally I find the erasure of individual thought in this model to be demeaning. You can’t blame everything every individual does on corporations having either made them do it or forced them to believe it through their actions. At some point we have to admit that people’s thoughts and actions are their own. If someone becomes so bitter that they’re becoming anti-OSM or anti-Wikipedia or anti-OSS, I’m fully okay with holding them to account for their chosen beliefs. | | |
| ▲ | pastel8739 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > This is another theme I notice in this same cohort > Personally I find the erasure of individual thought in this model to be demeaning. The fact that you are describing a behavior that you believe to be shared among a sizable group of people seems to contradict your claim that their beliefs are due to individual failings rather than some broader social forces that caused them to believe these things, no? |
| |
| ▲ | xyzzy123 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you think about government and corporations - they're responsible for so many bad things in the world! I guess that's true, but how much of it is them just doing all the stuff? So I don't know that it's fair? Nearly all the material goods around me and a ton of services were provided by corporations, which are largely composed of regular people glued together at scale by bureacracy. | | |
| ▲ | unrented7977 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a growing sentiment in the US that capitalism in general and consumerism in particular are inherently bad and cause only hardship and exploitation for the general public. | | |
| ▲ | verisimi 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | ... whereas the truth is ...? | |
| ▲ | shevy-java 4 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Capitalism is not inherently bad as such. Free market competition makes sense. Lowest prices. What we see right now in the USA, though, is a mafia. That has nothing to do with capitalism as such. It is a racket, a ponzi scheme. There are many variants of capitalism. Even the chinese adapted their variant to sinomarxistic ideals (to certain extent; I don't think today's main China is purely capitalistic nor purely sinomarxistic as it once used to be). |
| |
| ▲ | shevy-java 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Nearly all the material goods around me and a ton of services were provided by corporations But the issue is not about corporations - or companies - per se. The issue is how they relate to the general population. You can have good corporations and bad corporations. When billionaires buy legislation then something is wrong. When a corrupt elite invades countries and kills people - that's bad. | |
| ▲ | Computer0 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The material goods around me are crap and only serve to bring me further from being in touch with what it means to be human | | | |
| ▲ | soperj 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everything is actively getting worse for more corporate espionage.
I didn't actually say anything about government, mine seems to genuinely care for our welfare. Corporate food products (at least from the US) seem to be designed to just get you to consume more of them. |
| |
| ▲ | unrented7977 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, that seems like a perfectly natural response to the corporate capitalist hellscape the rising generations find themselves in. Shock horror, people tend to care most about things that they feel personally affect them. |
|
|
| ▲ | poisonborz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would argue that the MAG7 - about whom these complaints are about I assume, not some random little startup that uses OSM API - can no longer be seen as classical corporations. The power and moat they assumed can not be achieved by most other such entities. |
|
| ▲ | imoverclocked 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Much of the open source movement has its roots in anti-corporate culture too. Given that open source is now largely funded by corporations is a win for the ideals of open source but also a corruption of the early ethos; It’s very easy to equate open source with corporatism. |
|
| ▲ | zugi an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > ideas they get from social media and movies. This is something I've noticed as well. - Movies made after WWII that needed villians often made them Nazis. - During the cold war, evil villians were communists or Soviet spies. - Movies made after the fall of the Soviet Union often make their villians evil faceless corporations. A generation or two has been raised by Hollywood and Disney on business always being evil, while simultaneoulsy choosing to consume and make themselves dependent on giant corporate content. |
| |
| ▲ | jodrellblank 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > "A generation or two has been raised by Hollywood and Disney on business always being evil" Oh hollywood and disney, not the behaviour of Standard Oil, DeBeers, Nestle, Coca Cola, banks in the sub-prime mortgage crisis, Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, OPEC, DuPont, Chemie Grünenthal, an "epidemic" of wage theft in America estimated in the tens of billions per year, the trends towards enshittification, nickel-and-diming, rent-extraction and grifting of most products and services over time, health insurance companies, the lived experience of millions of workers being devalued, insulted, and treated like cattle? | |
| ▲ | wat10000 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We constructed alien superintelligences with no human emotion or morality, they took over much of the world, and people are surprised that they’re seen as villains. We’ve been very lucky that the incentive structure has them doing a lot of useful things for us, but that doesn’t mean we have to be happy about having so much of our lives being ruled by these amoral aliens. | |
| ▲ | latexr an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > A generation or two has been raised by Hollywood and Disney on business always being evil, while simultaneoulsy choosing to consume and make themselves dependent on giant corporate content. It’s fascinatingly devilish, isn’t it? They control the outrage and profit from it. I’m reminded of Bill Hicks’ bit on marketing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0 |
|
|
| ▲ | WarmWash an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think the difficult thing to reconcile is that you naturally will expect some degree of compensation (power, recognition, money, or a combo) for putting a lot of work into something. However on the other hand, it has been drilled into your head repeatedly that wanting compensation for work is "bad" and antithetical to social movements. You work for the whole, not for yourself. Besides, you (along with everyone else) gets to enjoy the fruits of others free work. But then after dwelling on it, you realize that 90% of the people holding you to this ideology aren't contributing much if anything at all, and just gorging themselves on the work of a few. So now you either consolidate power into your hands (nazi mods), lose motivation (project decays), or become an "evil" capitalist(start charging money for access). |
| |
| ▲ | armchairhacker an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Expecting compensation is fine. Demanding compensation is not, simply because it doesn't work: open source succeeds because those who contribute gets more collaboration and visibility than those who don't. You can be compensated by "gorging" on other open-source that you haven't contributed to, working outside OSS, or asking for funding to keep working or work more. But if you work privately, you're competing against someone who will work publicly, while limiting someone else who would like to use your private work but can't afford it (like you can't afford others). | |
| ▲ | jimmydddd 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Same with taxes. People with less money have the most opinions about how other people (with more money) should spend their money. | |
| ▲ | 6510 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > now you either consolidate power into your hands (nazi mods), lose motivation (project decays), or become an "evil" capitalist(start charging money for access). You never hear about them but there are also invitation only communities where contributing is required. The benefits are not shared outside. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | bothers an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |