menas

There is no or a very small impact of regulation on the number of exiled people coming in country. However, making more people illegal let bosses exploit them more. Those workers could not sue their boss because of those regulations, and most conservative unions rely unfortunately too much on legal solutions.

So if a country couldn't limit immigrations, it could exploit more people and bybass human right with regulations against exiled people.

Yes, this is only positive for far-right bosses, and awful for others. But guess who decide in a capitalist economy ?

What ? A corporation that earn money in selling personal data, that don't want to share its code that run on a device with a microphone, actually use it ? I'm shocked

So what is a confederation of different industries ? Why many of those confederation accept every industries but not cops association ? Finally, people organized tend to have share some analyses and goals, and some of them appends to be left-wing. It's not u surprise than people struggling for their rights meat the same issues, and share some common interests. Being smash by cops for no reasons when you just want to keep your job is an example why organized workers consider that cops have not the same interests

• Short term interest: Yearly benefits make the corporation value. Work to enhance stability, such as investment in other open source project, documentation, formation, or code quality enhancement are less likely to qet time
• Commercial focus: In a capitalist economy, we don't have pure and perfect knowledge of product. Even if it's supposed to work like this, commercials and adds are way more effective to sell products, than a top notch product
• Antagonist interests: even if workers tend to like making good stuff, they'd rather eat and get housed. Sending a warning because the products are bad or dangerous can threat someone that made a bad decision, which is likely to be someone in charge. Keeping a low profile is (unfortunately) a reasonable behavior

I think that an economy lead by financial interest, open market, and a hierarchy in the production is a good definition of capitalism.

And yes, definitely the way that people get food, housing, and not being exclude will define a lot of thing in society.

So in the end, they is an internal contradiction in capitalism. It just append to be collapse due to lack of ressources and dumb management

I am not sure this is a wide spread behavior among the IT. Reading the "Debian Free Software Guidelines", we could have some doubts. My point is not that free software are good or bad, but that is not enough. If we want te be responsible as producers, we have to organize as such to stop production that killing us (with climat change or military for example) and promote the one that emancipate us. Free software are a way to achieve the last one, unions the fist one

I said such things too, but one day I ask myself, could I said it in front of people bombed by my tools ? Our tools are not neutral things, but produce and distribute by social relationship that we could fight. Sorry but we the rise of fascism and ecological disaster we could not afford to give up our power as producer to mass murderer

Law do not exist by itself; it's the result of balance of power. How would you know that your State do not use illegally free software ? And if you know it, could you sue it ? Even if it's a classified administration ?

Apply laws Internationally is even worse. It usually depends of the imperialist relationship between States. For exemple, Facebook rules was illegal in France, but France changes it's laws rather than sue Facebook. A decade later, the whole European Union could forte RGPD upon the GAFAM.

China have nothing to fear in ignoring those licence, and we shouldn't rely on it to protect our work. However we could strengthen our common defenses, through FOSS for people in the US … and maybe trade unions elsewhere.

Sadly yes, Linux kill

Okay guys, maybe the is a contradiction in capitalism that make it collapse. It just append to be toxic masculinity

They choose to comply with the law. Other provider of service choose to not to. I would be okay if their main argument wouldn't be privacy, but it is.