Item — HN Reader

It's not that an open platform can't succeed, but rather people are accustomed to closed platforms, so more resources went into perfecting them. The aforementioned players pushing for control aren't invincible. Whether we can move to open platforms depends on the choices people make.

I can choose to use a bank that allows me to access all of their online banking features via the browser. I can choose to work for a company that doesn't want to surveil my personal device. I can deal with the government via snail mail, or in the browser. I can use third-party YouTube clients and torrent movies and games, or simply don't engage with DRM'd media because there's plenty of entertainment out there.

Count the percentage of software you use that are open-source compared to 10 years ago. I bet it's more. It's only a matter of time before we make hardware open-source, too.

When the mainstream is evil, being an outcast is the right thing to do. Every big change begins as a small movement.

1 comments

> I can choose to use a bank that allows me to access all of their online banking features via the browser.

Lucky you. There are fewer and fewer such banks out there. The trend is to route login and consequential interactions on the web through 2FA on a phone - and not TOTP, but push notifications sent to the bank's app, that only runs on devices that pass remote attestation checks.

> I can choose to work for a company that doesn't want to surveil my personal device.

Again, lucky you. Most people don't really get many options for employment at any given moment, and the issue of corporate phones is usually at the bottom of the list of criteria when one is looking for a job. I.e. not a real choice for most people.

> I can deal with the government via snail mail

At a snail pace.

> or in the browser.

Modern government systems around the world tend to require some sort of identification that usually gets tied to your smartphone, either directly or via your bank.

> I can use third-party YouTube clients and torrent movies and games, or simply don't engage with DRM'd media because there's plenty of entertainment out there.

Torrents aside, that's not the case. Entertainment isn't fungible. Disney can release all Star Wars media DRM-free for everyone to download, and it means exactly zero to someone who wants to watch Star Trek, but Paramount/CBS decided to go all Ferengi on the franchise. Can't substitute one for the other. This is why the market supports so many streaming services these days - they exploit this very fact.

> Count the percentage of software you use that are open-source compared to 10 years ago. I bet it's more.

Open Source software stopped mattering once the world embraced Software as a Service model. Source code on Github means nothing if the code is actually executed on servers you don't control and have no visibility into.

That covers end-user OSS. The larger space of OSS building blocks are... building blocks. OSS libraries matter to users just as much as standard Phillips screws used inside an appliance, when they're beneath layers of glue and permanently soldered elements and join together elements explicitly labeled as "not end-user servicable".

> It's only a matter of time before we make hardware open-source, too.

That time will come around when we build a Star Trek-style replicator (and then have a successful revolution to seize this new means to production, because no way the first company to build an universal manufacturing device is going to just let people use it). Open Source Software succeeded only because software development has near-zero natural barrier to entry, so there was a large supply of bored high-schoolers and students, hobbyists, academics and other do-gooders with enough time and will to just build stuff and give it away for free. This isn't true for hardware.

Now, circling back to the main point:

> Whether we can move to open platforms depends on the choices people make.

No, it does not. On consumer side, the market is driven by supply, not demand. I.e. you only get to choose from what the vendors decide to make available to you, and they know perfectly well you have to choose something, so your voice doesn't matter.

If it did, we wouldn't be having this whole thread in the first place.

> Lucky you. There are fewer and fewer such banks out there. The trend is to route login and consequential interactions on the web through 2FA on a phone - and not TOTP, but push notifications sent to the bank's app, that only runs on devices that pass remote attestation checks.

There will be fewer and fewer such banks out there if people choose to not use them, among other short-sighted decisions which produce such trends. You need to give the banks a reason to care.

> Again, lucky you. Most people don't really get many options for employment at any given moment, and the issue of corporate phones is usually at the bottom of the list of criteria when one is looking for a job. I.e. not a real choice for most people.

The first part is not true. You have plenty of options, they're just not equally good. It depends on what you're willing to give up in exchange. And you can push for change within your org.

> Modern government systems around the world tend to require some sort of identification that usually gets tied to your smartphone, either directly or via your bank.

They can have some sort of identification, but it shouldn't involve surveillance spyware on my device. If a government needs that then they're part of the problem. People form governments, you can push back against those people. Don't bend the knee to tyrants.

> Torrents aside, that's not the case. Entertainment isn't fungible. Disney can release all Star Wars media DRM-free for everyone to download, and it means exactly zero to someone who wants to watch Star Trek, but Paramount/CBS decided to go all Ferengi on the franchise. Can't substitute one for the other. This is why the market supports so many streaming services these days - they exploit this very fact.

Entertainment can be fungible if you decide that it is. I can live without watching a DRM-protected show. Watch something else. Do something else. They exploit the people which has decided for themselves that they must be loyal to certain franchises.

> Open Source software stopped mattering once the world embraced Software as a Service model. Source code on Github means nothing if the code is actually executed on servers you don't control and have no visibility into.

You can choose to not use SaaS. Host your own stuff. Give your money to ISPs that allow you to host stuff. Pressure your government to regulate ISPs. And there's plenty of offline software that doesn't need Internet connectivity. Not everything needs to be artificially-scarce cloud-slop, unless we want it to be.

> Open Source Software succeeded only because software development has near-zero natural barrier to entry, so there was a large supply of bored high-schoolers and students, hobbyists, academics and other do-gooders with enough time and will to just build stuff and give it away for free. This isn't true for hardware.

FOSS succeeded because there's a base production rate for software, software (as it gets further from the metal) doesn't need monetary incentives. When I said open-source hardware, I meant the IP. Obviously making the physical thing isn't free. But the IP doesn't need to be as scarce as it is now. Schematics will be harder than firmware will be harder than software to open-source because they're close to the hardware (which is naturally scarce), but it's possible, and will be done, and we don't need to invoke movie magic.

> No, it does not. On consumer side, the market is driven by supply, not demand. I.e. you only get to choose from what the vendors decide to make available to you, and they know perfectly well you have to choose something, so your voice doesn't matter. If it did, we wouldn't be having this whole thread in the first place.

Consumers and suppliers don't exist in perfectly separated vacuums. You can influence suppliers. There are plenty of side channels.

Here's what separates chance and choice:

If we assume that our decisions don't matter, then we're definitely screwed. If we assume that our decisions matter, then we're only probably screwed. It's up to each and every one of us to make the latter assumption.

Counterpoint: vast majority is not making those choices, and if you insist on defying the mainstream, you gradually become separated from human society.

This isn't solvable through individual choice. It's a coordination problem - and coordination problems are what underlies every actually hard problem that humanity is struggling with. War, poverty, authoritarian regimes, corporate overreach, environmental destruction, climate change - all could be solvable though choices like you describe, but in practice are not, because humans can't coordinate at scale.

Relevant search term: "meditations on Moloch".

The direction of society is the aggregate of our individual choices. I'm no expert on coordination, but I think we ought to start with ourselves and not spread misery like "your voice doesn't matter" or "humans can't coordinate at scale".

Interesting exchange! IMO you're both right.