The Free and Open Source Software Movement

The notion of free and open source software on its face is that the code base of the software is available for all eyes to see (open source) and that the user has a high degree of flexibility in controlling said software (free as in freedom). This concept has served for the locus of a full on free software movement whose primary focus is to promote the proliferation and usage of free and open source software. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the GNU project have been the largest and longest running projects to promote and create a suite of free software respectively. Richard Stallman, who is the founder of the FSF and the GNU project, elucidated the four software freedoms that a program must have to be considered free software:

1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The free software movement has transcended into a full throated political movement as evident by the inception of pirate parties. These parties endorse principles that are pertinent to having a free and open society, such as robust democratic institutions, intellectual property reform, the classical liberal freedoms, privacy, crowdsourcing in certain aspects of government, open data and transparency, and more. These ideas are the epitome to a vibrant liberal democracy, and although there are a diverse set of political sentiments by people who are users of free software, the vast majority of them wholeheartedly endorse these positions.

Why Does Any of This Matter

Free and open source software has liberated developers and users alike to adapt software to their needs and has enabled unparalleled innovation in software the likes of which hasn’t been seen before. The impetus Richard Stallman had for creating the GNU and the FSF was his profound dismay at the practices of development in the corporate world; stringent restrictions on the use of source code and the requisition of a non-disclosure agreement to use some or all aspects of the software were just a couple of salient concerns.

It wasn’t just about the fact that there are numerous practical advantages to have software be free and open source such as fewer bugs and greater flexibility of use. It is a fundamental issue of giving deference and respect to the user; that they know what is best for themselves and that the software shouldn’t be designed in a way that exploits them or binds them. This is increasingly pertinent as our world continues to rapidly digitize and we see the expeditious adoption of IoT devices. We have to make philosophical choices about what we expect and tolerate as the privacy and safety of millions is at stake.

The Capitol Incident

It goes without saying that the breaching of the US Capitol building on January 6th of this year was an abhorrent act of domestic terror incited by President Trump through the usage of stochastic terrorism tactics. In light of acts of terrorism, it’s often the prerogative of the state to respond unduly to the event. As of the time of this writing, the Democratic caucus in both chambers in Congress have called to enact legislation that classifies any MAGA rally as domestic terrorism and require alphabet soup agencies to take action against such gatherings.

This unbridled usage of the apparatuses of the security state to censor and shutdown speech that they dislike is a clear violation of the first amendment. Personally, I loathe the president and the incoherent ideology he has inculcated his millions of supporters in. That’s of zero relevance as this kind of “domestic security legislation” paves a path to draconian rule where those who can seize power can wield the state against their political adversaries.

Of relevance to this topic, however, is various technology companies abjuring their purported beliefs to attack the people using the internet in ways they don’t like. Amazon Web Services ended hosting for the rising social media application Parler. While this isn’t a violation of the 1st amendment, it’s possibly in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Mozilla Post

Mozilla penned a disconcerting blog post titled We need more than Deplatforming. In this terse writing, they didn’t just endorse removing people from social media they dislike, but also supported several “solutions” that are antithetical to the organization’s manifesto. The four tenets in their manifesto read:

We are committed to an internet that includes all the peoples of the earth — where a person’s demographic characteristics do not determine their online access, opportunities, or quality of experience.

We are committed to an internet that promotes civil discourse, human dignity, and individual expression.

We are committed to an internet that elevates critical thinking, reasoned argument, shared knowledge, and verifiable facts.

We are committed to an internet that catalyzes collaboration among diverse communities working together for the common good.

The recently promoted tactics of Mozilla are inimical to the pro-privacy, open internet vision they’ve stewarded for so many years. Excessive disclosure requirements that could potentially amount to doxxing simply for paying for an advertisement and becoming the arbiters of what content is true isn’t in line with the work Mozilla has done over the years. The EFF (thankgoodness), understands what is at stake here.

These actions have forced me to reconsider the status of Mozilla Firefox as my daily driver. In ethically consuming software, it’s critical to refuse using software and/or services that are hostile to user freedom or that come from an organization that itself is hostile to user freedom. Thus, I intend to stop using the browser I’ve used with almost near continuous usage since 2006. I cannot support an organization that will incinerate their principles for political avarice. I encourage everyone using Mozilla Firefox to cease using it at least until they rescind this statement and recommit themselves to their currently purported manifesto.

Some Alternatives

For those looking to find an alternative, I recommend

• qutebrowser (lightweight keyboard driven browser using QTWebEngine backend)
• Brave (feature rich, configurable browser that uses a chromium backend)
• Eloston’s ungoogled-chromium (chromium, but stripped of closed source binaries from Google as well as blocking Google)
• Konqueror (KDE file manager and browser)

Twexit

Twitter has historically been fairly hostile to user privacy as well as certain users in general through censorship of people who say things they don’t like with the latest victim of note being President Trump himself. Obviously, they have the freedom to do these things, but this creates an environment not conducive to having fully open discourse.

Some have called to regulate twitter and other social media companies like utilities which would entrench them and every other current “winner” in the sector. The more attractive alternative is eventual exit to platforms that will allow for more user control and freedom. This has already manifested in the form of various federated free and open source platforms such as diaspora* and mastodon. The nature of federation makes them extremely resistant to censorship; in the event that the administrator of a given instance removes you, simply join or create another. IRC still remains a highly viable option for open discourse given that you’re in a network that supports freedom of speech.

Porting sections of our social graphs that are willing to start soft migration is relatively trivial. Many such as myself have moved with others to Signal group chats in order to have privacy and obviate the fear of being censored for saying something distasteful. Long term, moving to FOSS federated networks is the ultimate goal. It can be done if we all recognize just how valuable our user freedom is.