[…] being able to say, "wherever you get your podcasts" is a radical statement. Because what it represents is the triumph of exactly the kind of technology that's supposed to be impossible: open, empowering tech that's not owned by any one company, that can't be controlled by any one company, and that allows people to have ownership over their work and their relationship with their audience.

What podcasting holds in the promise of its open format is the proof that an open web can still thrive and be relevant, that it can inspire new systems that are similarly open to take root and grow.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I don't follow what you're saying. The economic model we're in has been around for hundreds, arguably thousands of years in most ways. What about it?

The author was assuming people would know that "impossible" doesn't always need to be literal. Things are more often impossible because of established norms. That's all.

The norms we are discussing here is that under capitalism, the norm tends to be trending away from free and open systems. Because where there is a buck to be made, there's usually someone doing everything they can to make that buck and prevent the openness that would render them useless.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The economic model we're in has been around for hundreds, arguably thousands of years in most ways. What about it?

And open source came into being inside of that model, and has grown and thrived since. So obviously, it's not impossible.

The norms we are discussing here is that under capitalism, the norm tends to be trending away from free and open systems.

Right, this isn't true. While certainly there are some businesses that try to restrict it, open systems grow and spread anyway. Open source is bigger and stronger than ever today. Open source software is so widespread that it's a security concern for governments (look at the log4j fiasco). You interact with open platforms every day, even if you don't see their names in commercials or on billboards (many of them don't have to advertise).

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think you're just being argumentative honestly. I don't disagree with anything you've said really, I just take issue with the intentional reading of "possible" as "technically possible".

Yeah OSS and a lot of open systems are huge and great. They will continue to grow. But as we both know, business will continue to be intentionally shitty. Exhibit A: world's first trillion dollar company, Apple, thrives mostly due to the proprietary ecosystem they've put in place. It's a "winning" strategy, as much as I loathe it.

We're not disagreeing on anything but wording here.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

OK, but I'm not arguing for the sake of argument. What I take issue with is the overly negative point of view that isn't justified by the reality of the current technology market. It's limited, depressive and ultimately self-destructive.

Perspective matters. Money isn't the only measure of success. Internet infrastructure is basically Linux, nginx and Apache - seriously, apart from user endpoints it's pretty much all open source - and the most common endpoint OS is Android so also open source. The idea that open systems aren't as successful as proprietary ones doesn't reflect reality, it's a projection of a limited point of view onto reality (it only seems true if large portions of the current technology market are ignored).

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I get where you are coming from now. Thanks for elaborating.

I can see where you'd get that it's an overly negative point of view, but I'll be damned if companies like Apple don't give me so many reasons to think that way :(