[pfannkuchen]

Government projects today, you mean.

The government could act like an immortal mega corp if it had the authority to do so. Such as pushing out competition via loss leaders. And as a bonus, with the government, every program can be a loss leader.

The funding potential for this pattern is constrained today, which is why government projects that compete with private industry are generally terrible. But, clearly, the money is there to be captured by this segment out of government funding generally, if the government is allowed to enter business directly.

The solid argument I see against allowing such actions is a slippery slope towards the above. Slippery slope arguments aren’t always correct, of course, but they aren’t always wrong either; they just point out a risk. Depending on one’s risk tolerance, it is wise to avoid slippery slopes when you can’t quantify just how steep it is.

[cyberax]

One limiting factor: the government-produced software will be open source. So the barriers for innovation will be significantly lower for _everyone_.

Right now, I can't fix that one small bug in Notion that keeps bothering me. I have to raise an issue and hope that they add the API required to do that. In the case of open source base produced by the government, I can make a small (perhaps paid) add-on with that functionality.

[pfannkuchen]

Yeah totally I think this instance is fine too. I’m kind of speculating why some people seem to get a spooky feeling around stuff like this, even though on the surface it seems totally innocuous.

[cyberax]

Government crowding out companies is absolutely a concern. I don't want the government running grocery shops or making video games.

But it works fine for infrastructure where competition is not only rare, but often is counter-productive, like for sewer and water delivery. Can this include software infrastructure? Maybe.