[sbuk]

> "On the other hand you have dystopian corporate whose biggest dream is slave labor and locked-in cash cows from which value is drained 'til the last drop."

An therein is the problem I, and I know many others, have with the FSF and it's followers. This language is just not compelling - in fact, it's a massive turn off, even if you think it's true. This comes off as the ravings of a crackpot! Consider "On the other hand, there are very real concerns about some corporations, with evidence that they are prioritizing profits over ethics, potentially leading to exploitative practices and consumers feeling trapped in long-term commitments.". IMHO says exactly the same thing, conveys the same gravity and prompts engagement.

[noufalibrahim]

Precisely. It's hard to argue that these "dystopian corporate" entities haven't added any value to the society. You can make a solid case that the intangible costs are too high but starting off with accusing them of "slave labor" and "locked-in cash cows" is a non starter and it's been the kind of rhetoric that the FSF has always used.

I don't (and never wanted) the FSF to dilute its message but I do think they'd benefit from someone who can communicate their ideas in a more palatable way. Perhaps it's too late anyway.

[shadowgovt]

I think they often serve a useful purpose moving the Overton window... But it's why I can nod respectfully at them from over here, but not join them. The core of the free software movement embraces a radicalism that's out of line with reality and would actually reflect a worse world than the one we live in (who's going to make locked-down systems for people who don't want to be their own sysadmins if we actually kill off the closed-corporate model? I, for one, am not stepping up to volunteer to be the one who does that for all my relatives who are a stone's throw away from getting their stuff ownzed if they had admin rights to it).

[mbakke]

That's a false dichotomy. It's possible to have a locked down device that allows full access/visibility if you jump through enough hoops.

(Android is almost there, software wise, but closed vendor firmwares are still rampant).

[gglitch]

I'm no zealot or apologist for the FSF, but on a philosophical level, your alternate expression (and the expression above that you're amending) feel like they both miss the point altogether. I don't think the FSF cares at all about corporations, profits, or long-term commitments. Their whole point, as I understand it, has to do with whether a given license leaves the door open for the well to get poisoned. A license is either prophylactically sound or it isn't.

[sbuk]

While I would agree that was the original purpose, the rhetoric has been closer to anti-corporation for a while. This seemed to change around the time the GPLv3 came out.

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> An therein is the problem I, and I know many others, have with the FSF and it's followers. This language is just not compelling - in fact, it's a massive turn off, even if you think it's true. This comes off as the ravings of a crackpot!

I suppose it depends on who is talking and what is being said, but the FSF message can be very direct:

https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM?t=57

[psychoslave]

Now, obviously not every small business out there are necessarily fitting such a description. Just like not every FLOW author live and breath by the stance that every single bit out there should contribute to people freedom and empowerment.

If anything, when an audience is unease with what is obvious caricatures which overstate the usual median traits, there is all the more concerns about the situation.

[badsectoracula]

This reminds me George Carlin's skit on soft language:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY