[ue_]

>when you include millions of employees

Although it's good that people are getting by with a job, exploitation is still present.

>without them computers would still by a hobby

Many people wish they were, this seems like a matter of taste.

The fact is that IP law necessarily requires censorship, and many people, including myself, do not view that as a positive thing, no matter what the cost is. It's a matter of principle; why is suddenly censorship OK when it's in law? Because we're all used to it? Because there wouldn't be 'innovation' without it? My value system throws out all these excuses - I think it is wrong, full stop. So I do not obey IP law.

Others may have different opinions, but I do not support it.

So let's look at your "net positive" of these companies: worker exploitation on a massive scale, including sweatshop labour and horrid production lines in developing countries, censorship, and not being afforded our software freedoms. But don't worry about that - there's plenty of innovation going on.

[BoorishBears]

Most people wouldn't have those freedoms to censor if computers were still a "hacker hobby". A censored internet is still the equivalent of the second coming of print from an information standpoint. I imagine it was rather trivial to censor a book back then too. Compare what someone at an Internet cafe in China can learn to someone in that same country minus their censored internet.

The internet didn't cause propaganda or indoctrination they'd be exposed to, if anything it makes it even harder to indoctrinate people when you're essentially blacklisting the truth instead of whitelisting it (what happened back when information came only from a government)

I'm also amused you call that outcome for computers something that could be considered good depending on ones taste.

As if the fact computers have brought almost all of mankinds information to the literal fingertips of masses of people instead of being a curiosity for a small subset of that population is something good only as a matter of "taste". What they've done for fields like medicine and aerospace, and hundreds of fields.

Do you know the definition of "net positive"? It means despite sweatshops (which existed well before computers and are an issue that's gotten better, not worse), ecological damage, and a new frontier for oppression we as a world have come forward. And we have, people naively attempt to blame our issues on technology when globally life expectancy is rising and technology is finally starting to make inroads in the world's poorest populations.

It's like people who are obsessed with software freedom forget that having software be so ubiquitous they practically consider it an inalienable right is a privilege that was earned not just by open source, but "ruthless entrepreneurs" trying to make a profit.

And IP law is not "censorship" and frankly its childish to imply someone choosing not to share their own original idea is "censorship", regardless of what it's built on. There are licenses for people who want to kill usage of their work for closed profit generation, if they're not used all use is game regardless of mora outrage.

[ue_]

>which existed well before computers and are an issue that's gotten better, not worse

That's irrelevant; the fact is that they still exist, and they are still used to make computer products.

>Compare what someone at an Internet cafe in China can learn to someone in that same country minus their censored internet.

And imagine what you could do without any censored Internet. I'm not seeing your point here.

>we as a world have come forward

I do not dispute that, feudalism was better than what preceded it, and capitalism is better than the feudalism that preceeded it. I do not see why we must keep it this way, though, and in fact endorse the problems of capitalism (eco damage, censorship because of IP law that only exists due to capitalism, sweatshop labour) and throw up our arms and say "well, it's better than it was before".

Better than before is not good enough. Not nearly good enough.

>having software be so ubiquitous they practically consider it an inalienable right

Almost nobody considers access to software a right.

>not just by open source, but "ruthless entrepreneurs" trying to make a profit.

That is not a justification for the continued existence of the technology industry.

>And IP law is not "censorship"

To say that I'm not allowed to publish something is censorship. If I'm not allowed to copy a book by photocopying for example, it's censorship. If I am barred from any kind of communication whatsoever, no matter the content, it's censorship.

>choosing not to share their own original idea is "censorship"

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that once it's "out there", once it's been released to someone, it would be censorship to tell that person that they are not allowed to share what they have been provided with. And the concept of an idea having value is laughable, it's such a strange concept. "I had an idea first therefore I can stop you from doing things with that idea, even if you came up with it by yourself". It literally makes me laugh. The sheer childish selfishness of it all.

Nobody ought to be able to force you to tell them something, and nobody ought to be able to force you not to tell someone something.