Capitalist Software

   Capitalist software is [1]software that late stage [2]capitalism produces
   and is practically 100% [3]shitty [4]modern [5]bloat and [6]malware
   hostile to its users, made with the sole goal of benefiting its creator
   (often a [7]corporation). Capitalist software is not just [8]proprietary
   corporate software, but a lot of times "[9]open source", [10]indie
   software and even [11]free software that's just infected by the toxic
   capitalist environment, even just subconsciously and very indirectly
   through infected [12]culture -- this infection may come deep even into the
   basic design principles (e.g. tolerance of [13]high complexity,
   [14]dependencies, [15]OOP etc.), even such things as [16]UI design,
   terminology used in the program, priorities and development practices and
   subtle software behavior which have simply all been shaped by the
   capitalist pressure on abusing the user. It is for example known that
   social media "[17]apps" made by [18]corporations are designed to induce
   psychological addiction, they will for example use bright colors and even
   make the colors brighter as one scrolls through comments as that
   psychologically rewards the user -- this undesirable and highly harmful
   kind of design is then culturally standardized, people accept that "this
   is how programs look and behave", and such standards subsequently have to
   be adopted by any program that wants to be popular (or, as a normie will
   usually always it: "intuitive").

   { Seriously I don't have enough brain to understand how anyone can accept
   this shit. ~drummyfish }

   Capitalist software largely mimics in technology what capitalist economy
   is doing in society -- for example it employs huge waste of resources
   (computing resources such as RAM and CPU cycles as an equivalent to
   natural resources) in favor of rapid growth (accumulation of
   "[19]features"), it creates hugely complex, interdependent and fragile
   ever growing networks (tons of library of hardware [20]dependencies as an
   equivalent of import/export dependencies of countries) and employs
   consumerism (e.g. in form of mandatory frequent [21]updates). These
   effects of course bring all the negative implications along and lead to
   highly inefficient, fragile, bloated, unethical software.

   Basically everyone will agree that corporate software such as [22]Windows
   is to a high degree abusive to its users, be it by its spying, unjustified
   hardware demands, forced non customizability, price etc. A mistake a lot
   of people make is to think that sticking a free [23]license to similar
   software will simply make it magically friendly to the user and that
   therefore most [24]FOSS programs are ethical and respect its users. This
   is sadly not the case, a license if only the first necessary step towards
   [25]freedom, but not a sufficient one -- other important steps have to
   follow.

   A ridiculous example of capitalist software is the most consumerist type:
   [26]games. AAA games are pure evil that no longer even try to be good,
   they just try to be addictive like drugs. Games on release aren't even
   supposed to work correctly, tons of bugs are the standard, something
   that's expected by default, customers aren't even meant to receive a
   finished product for their money. They aren't even meant to own the
   product or have any control over it (lend it to someone, install it on
   another computer, play it offline or play it when it gets retired). These
   games spy on people (via so called [27]anti-cheat systems), are
   shamelessly meant to be consumed and thrown away, purposefully
   incompatible ("exclusives"), [28]bloated, discriminative against low-end
   computers and even targeting attacks on children ("lootboxes"). Game
   corporations attack and take down fan modification and remakes and show
   all imaginable kinds of unethical behavior such as trying to steal rights
   for maps/mods created with the game's editor (Warcraft: Reforged).

   But how can possibly a [29]FOSS program be abusive? Let's mention a few
   examples:

     * Being a [30]bloat monopoly.
     * Allowing [31]maintenance cost to be high and prioritizing e.g.
       [32]features over maintainability leads to programs being expensive to
       maintain which discriminizes against developers unable to pay this
       maintenance cost. If a rich corporation intentionally makes their
       program bloated and expensive to just maintain, it ensures no one poor
       will be able to fork the software and maintain it (let alone shape it
       into something better), which effectively removes the possibility of
       an ethical competition being made out of their "open source" program.
     * [33]Bloat, intentional [34]obscurity and [35]update culture may lead
       to de-facto (as opposed to de-jure) limitations of basic [36]freedom
       conditions, despite a free license. Specifically freedom 1 (to study
       the software, which may be unnecessarily difficult and expensive) and
       2 (to modify the software, which requires its understanding,
       unnecessarily high cost of dealing with bad code and the ability to
       compile it which may be non-trivial). Therefore a company may, on
       paper, provide the rights to study and modify their program, but keep
       the actual know-how of the program's working and modification private,
       de-facto becoming the program's owner and sole controlling entity.
     * Allowing [37]proprietary [38]dependencies, which happens especially in
       [39]open source. While free software usually avoids this, open source
       is happy with e.g. Windows-only programs which of course requires the
       users to run abusive code in order for the program to function.
     * Unnecessarily high [40]hardware demands and dropping support for old
       hardware which drives [41]consumerism and discriminates against poor
       people and people who just don't want to "consoom" hardware. A group
       can make "open source" software that intentionally requires the latest
       hardware that they just happen to sell (e.g. [42]gaymes with "AAA
       graphics"), even if the software might in theory run on older
       hardware. Possible "fixes" of this by third parties can be prevented
       by the above mentioned techniques.
     * Allowing [43]bloat to increase the risk of security vulnerabilities
       and bugs (which may in some ares be fatal and lead to literal deaths).
     * Obscurity and interdependence may be used to successfully hide
       malicious features even within publicly accessible code. See for
       example the anti-Russian "protestware" cases such as [44]node-ipc, an
       "open source" package that introduced malicious file-wiping code and
       infected all software depending on it.
     * Introducing dangerous dependencies: for example a fully free software
       may be unnecessarily designed as [45]cloud software which increases
       the risk of its non functionality e.g. in cases of Internet blackouts
       (or just any loss of connection).
     * Licenses can by bypassed, e.g. [46]copyleft was legally eliminated by
       [47]Google's [48]Android which is based on copylefted [49]Linux: their
       proprietary Play Store is a 3rd party program to which the copyleft
       doesn't apply but which is essential for Android and serves to control
       Android (which should have been prevented by the copyleft). This is an
       example of a FOSS "protection mechanism" failing under capitalist
       pressure.
     * Setting up discriminatory, fascist and toxic centralized development
       communities that de-facto own and control the software and use
       discriminatory practices and censorship, e.g. with [50]codes of
       conduct. This allows to bully and "cancel" developers who are, for
       political or any other reason, unwelcome.
     * Even free software may behave in unethical ways. For example a company
       that profits from gambling may create a completely "FOSS" game for
       children that however teaches them gambling so that when they grow up
       they'll be more likely to become their victims.

   The essential issue of capitalist software is in its goal: profit. This
   doesn't have to mean making money directly, profit can also mean e.g.
   gaining popularity and political power. This goal goes before and
   eventually against goals such as helping and respecting the users. A free
   license is a mere obstacle on the way towards this goal, an obstacle that
   may for a while slow down corporation from abusing the users, but which
   will eventually be overcome just by the sheer power of the market
   environment which works on the principles of Darwinian evolution: those
   who make most profit, by any way, survive and thrive.

   Therefore "fixing" capitalist software is only possible via redefinition
   of the basic goal to just developing [51]selfless software that's good for
   the people (as opposed to making software for profit). This approach
   requires eliminating or just greatly limiting capitalism itself, at least
   from the area of technology. We need to find other ways than profit to
   motivate development of software and yes, other ways do exist (morality,
   social status, fun etc.).

Links:
1. software.md
2. capitalism.md
3. shit.md
4. modern.md
5. bloat.md
6. malware.md
7. corporation.md
8. proprietary.md
9. open_source.md
10. indie.md
11. free_software.md
12. culture.md
13. bloat.md
14. dependency.md
15. oop.md
16. ui.md
17. app.md
18. corporation.md
19. feature.md
20. dependency.md
21. update_culture.md
22. windows.md
23. license.md
24. foss.md
25. freedom.md
26. game.md
27. anti_cheat.md
28. bloat.md
29. foss.md
30. bloat_monopoly.md
31. maintenance.md
32. feature_creep.md
33. bloat.md
34. obscurity.md
35. update_culture.md
36. free_software.md
37. proprietary.md
38. dependency.md
39. open_source.md
40. hardware.md
41. consumerism.md
42. game.md
43. bloat.md
44. node_ipc.md
45. cloud.md
46. copyleft.md
47. google.md
48. android.md
49. linux.md
50. coc.md
51. selflessness.md