Technology

Free in FOSS means free as in freedom not free as in beer.

But ultimately, the F in FOSS doesn’t really mean “Free”. It means “Free to the end user”.

The F in FOSS does NOT mean gratis. I absolutely hate that we decided to call it Free. There have been attempts at saying another word like libre (aka FLOSS) but those haven't worked out.

I don't agree with the FSF on a lot, but their definition of free software is as follows:

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

In other words software can be paid and still be FOSS. In fact, I want to see MORE paid software that's FOSS.

Gratis software only works in very rare cases, when an entity other than the user of the software pays for it, but that is NOT the case with FOSS.

I want more FOSS software that is monetized. Charging for FOSS software is not only permissible but desirable. This model ensures that developers are compensated for their skilled labor, fostering an environment where innovation is rewarded. It's about creating a sustainable ecosystem where the values of open-source are upheld without sacrificing the financial viability of the developers.

When software is open-source and monetized, it strikes a critical balance. Users gain the freedoms associated with FOSS – the liberty to run, modify, and share – while developers receive the financial recognition for their contributions.

Paid FOSS software also opens doors to more professional and polished products. When developers are remunerated, there's a greater incentive to maintain, improve, and support software. This, in turn, encourages wider adoption, as users are more likely to rely on software that is regularly updated and supported.

Moreover, a paid FOSS model disrupts the surveillance capitalism model. It negates the need for monetizing user data, as the revenue comes directly from the users in exchange for the software. This aligns perfectly with the principles of respecting user privacy and data ownership.

I WANT to pay for FOSS software that respects my rights and freedoms. The payment becomes an investment in a world where software is not just a tool, but a statement of principles. It's a declaration that I support an ecosystem where the power and control lie with the users, not in the hands of a few large corporations.

By paying for FOSS, we're contributing to a marketplace that values ethical practices over profit maximization. We're fostering a space where software developers don't have to resort to underhanded tactics like data mining or invasive advertising to make a living. Instead, they can focus on creating quality, user-respecting software.

This isn't to say that all FOSS should come with a price tag. There will always be a place for gratis FOSS, especially in educational and non-profit sectors, tho in such cases developers should strive to ask for donations. But for the software that powers businesses and our daily lives, a paid model is more sustainable and ethical.

The beauty of this approach is its alignment with the principles of free-market capitalism. It's a voluntary exchange where value is given and received. Users pay for the freedom, quality, and respect that FOSS offers, while developers are compensated for their ingenuity and hard work.

I don't think that's entirely true. Or at least not in the longer term view of it. YT isn't just some random store that doesn't want to deal with an unruly customer. It's a big tech monopoly platform. Like the other tech giants, their strategy has always hinged on becoming the only game in town. And they predictably use the same tactics monopolies have been using for the past century:

1. Offer the product at such a low price that you take a loss and use your hoard of money to outlast would-be competitors who don't have a massive pot of money to burn. In YT/Google terms this is the fact that it's a free site and up until very recently they've done little to nothing about adblocking users despite being one of the biggest tech companies in the world, knowing it is happening, (It was in their chrome extensions search, plus they don't pay the creators for the no-ad views.) and having the capability to stop it at least for their browser, which a lot of people were already using. Why not go to war with adblockers sooner when their entire business is built on advertising? Because that's the cost they were willing to bear to turn YT into a monopoly. They could take the hit on not getting ad revenue from some users, but some hypothetical competitor certainly couldn't.

2. Make switching hard. A site that's grown as large as YT has massive network effects. For viewers, that's where all the videos are. For creators that's where all the viewers are. For both that's where there is enough of a community that there are lively discussions in comments. Nobody outside nerds like us is going to some external site they've never heard of. If you want to get your stuff out there, you use YT. Then there are things like creator contracts to further discourage switching.

Ad block users aren't valueless to YT, or at least they weren't. They were a portion of those viewers and commenters that contributed to YT becoming THE video social media site. They comment, share videos around, maybe even contribute directly to creators to allow them to keep making YT video. You maybe lose a out on a couple cents from the lost ad views for each one of them, but the value of the network effect gained by keeping them around this long far outweighs that loss.

EDIT: Oh and how could I forget: They get data from you. Sure, they can't directly sell ads for you off that data, but the more data they have in general, the better they are able to make predictions about other similar users, which is valuable.

They're doing this now because they can. They no longer have meaningful competition to kill off. The few that kinda cross into their market are also massive tech platform monopolies that are currently engaged in the exact same thing. They can't expand their customer base anymore, so now they're extracting more money from the captive audience they have.

And it's not just adblock users they're increasing the "price" for. YT has added an insane number of ads to their videos and increased the price of YT Premium. If adblockers died tomorrow, they wouldn't be like "What a relief, now that we've gotten rid of the freeloaders, we can finally lower our prices for everyone since they aren't bearing the burden of the non-payers." They just get to tighten the screws even further because they would have gained an even more dominant position over their users.

In a fairer world, we'd all pay a reasonable amount for the things we use or move on to an alternative if we'd rather not. But we don't live in that world. We live in capitalist hell world where everything is a monopoly and the government is so captured by those corporate interests that they basically never enforce even the meager anti-trust laws we do have.

this is a salient point sure, but you are perfectly capable of wording it in a way that doesn't also suck off a shitty malignant corporation. why the fuck would you sympathize with google? they have trillions of dollars, it is literally not at all comparable to your work.

thank you for being so mature and telling us peons the Real Mature Truths. your bravery is commendable.

I...honestly don't think you're particularly honest about this.

Mainly because Youtube red exists and it's main sell is removing ads, but we already know the answer to that. (Most people don't actually want to buy the service)

And it's not like it's shitty service. It's Youtube without ads.

That’s a flippant response when you were asked specifically to pretend they were your monkeys.

Why would they? It's not like it's going to be bringing customers to their other services and Google isn't a charity.

From a financial standpoint, that doesn’t make any sense though. Why would you continue to run a service that is a net drain on the rest of your business? Unless it can offer some meaningful, tangible benefit to the company, why continue to operate it at all? If a service needs to be subsidized to survive, why does it need to survive?

Google has basically used it to increase their tracking capabilities across the web. They know when you visit any site with an embedded YouTube video. But that’s only possible because they’re already a massive company. And it’s not reasonable to expect them to continue subsidizing it out of the goodness of their hearts. After all, if you’re willing to ask them to subsidize it, why aren’t you willing to help by paying for premium? It’s easy to say “just subsidize it” when it’s not your money.

To be clear, I don’t pay for premium and probably never will. But this thread has a lot of emotionally charged “because I want it” responses, which aren’t really grounded in reality. YouTube has operated at a loss for a decade, and only continued to operate because it had the backing of a tech giant. But if that tech giant wants to stop subsidizing the site and finally make the site profitable, that’s their prerogative. Yes, it’s the final step in the enshittification process. Yes, it means free users will have a worse experience. But ultimately, the company isn’t required to care about the free users.