This article is the second entry of series of posts exploring situations in which FLOSS alone isn’t enough to secure user freedom. My previous a

Keeping platforms open

submited by

Style Pass

2021-05-26 10:00:16

This article is the second entry of series of posts exploring situations in which FLOSS alone isn’t enough to secure user freedom.

My previous article, Whatsapp and the domestication of users, got more attention than I was expecting. Some responses gave me a lot to think about,1 especially regarding actions we can take. I suggest reading that article first; it explained what “user domestication” is and why it’s a problem. It enumerated three countermeasures: FLOSS, simplicity, and open platforms.

Hard problems, by definition, lack easy solutions. Simply choosing (or creating) a platform that avoids user domestication isn’t enough if that platform can change. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance; in addition to settling on the right platform, we must ensure that it honors its users in both the present and the future. Keeping a platform FLOSS and simple is more straightforward2 than keeping a platform “open”.

These three approaches overlap: they frequently feature platform monoculture and a single vendor controlling both clients and servers.