It’s difficult to exaggerate the damage that has been caused to the original vision of the web through the commercialisation of domain names. Imposing artificial scarcity and the complexity of commerce systems on a fundamental identifier makes it orders of magnitude harder to self host. Domain names should be a public good. We should embrace in the EU and mandate that all browser vendors implement support and get Let’s Encrypt to provide TLS support.


@aral Under what legal theory can a liberal government micromanage all browser vendors?

@freakazoid @aral under the same theory that allows them to micromanage the ingredients in food, or medication, or.... regulation is common

@walruslifestyle @aral Food safety is explicitly included as a regulatable category. So far software has been relatively untouched.

And we're not just talking about commercial entities here, but open source developers as well.

Food safety laws have been used to squash independent food production fairly effectively. The same will happen with open source once we start regulating software.

@freakazoid @aral the majority of web users use Chrome, from Google, or Firefox, from Mozilla which takes large corporate donations. literally what's being proposed is regulating these large corporate entities to stop them from leveraging their power to wrest money from individuals. exactly what regulation is intended to do. I fail to see the issue, nor the novelty, in this aside from being astounded that it hasn't happened sooner given the level of harm caused

@walruslifestyle @freakazoid @aral

You are pretty naive if you think that regulation constraints big existing players.

The problem with regulating software now ia that it is still too primitive. We would hurt innovation that occurs on free software.

The solution for these issues is very simple: cap company size. Split Google, Facebook, Amazon and friends in a few thousands little company. Problem solved.

@Shamar @aral @walruslifestyle Incidentally, I am open to the idea of software regulation if I can figure out how it's not going to harm free software in ways that don't provide clear benefits on the other side, and if I can convince myself there's a clear Schelling point that's going to prevent the same justification from being used for some really harmful regulation down the road.

@freakazoid @walruslifestyle @aral

I'm open to regulate software corporations but regulating software is regulating speach.

Software #programming is a fundamental method of human expression that today is still too primitive to realize it's potential as a force for human #freedom.

So we have most scribes/programmers serving the Pharaoh/Capitalism, a few trying to contrast it but on it's rules and a handful studying how to make everybody write / code.

@Shamar Removing the other folks since we're getting into software philosophy here, but I find this topic super interesting.

I kind of wonder if many of the people getting sucked into serving capitalism would really be making a difference, though. Being able to program doesn't necessarily mean you'd be helping increase freedom if you weren't serving the man. For that I think about Alan Kay and the people around him who are focusing on research into revolutionizing how people use computers.


They would be irrelevant.

When everyone will be able to code and debug their own software, software corporations will be much different from now.

@Shamar @freakazoid I'd add that they'd still be very different if everyone had software freedom but didn't necessarily know how to code.


@Shamar @freakazoid The non-programmers would be able to choose who exercises their software freedoms on their behalf.

I think that's perfectly acceptable.

@alcinnz @freakazoid

Would you accept to just be able to decide who can write for you? Instead of being able to write yourself?

I know that I wouldn't.

And don't say that writing is easier!
I've seen how hard is to learn on myself and my daughter. It's not easy at all! But over a few thousands years we managed to make it accessible to the whole humanity.

Informatics will be a serious discipline when we will reach this level of accessibility.

@Shamar @freakazoid If, say, it's writing legal documents I'm happy to defer to someone specialized in that field. As long as I have a decent understanding of what they wrote.

I think that's very comparable, but I'm guessing you're going to disagree.

@alcinnz @freakazoid

Yes, for several reasons.

For example, even if you can't write a legal text from scratch, you can read it, understand it.

People who can't program, can't debug.

So they have no way to see if what is written is really what they want the hardware to do for them, even if they have the whole multi gigabytes codebase available.

When everyone will be able to code, all programs will be small and composable, by market selection: crap won't survive.

@Shamar @freakazoid I think we're back on the same page.

People do need to at least see what the computer's doing (e.g. any network activity). And I don't think that has any real conflict with usability at all.

@alcinnz @freakazoid

There is no conflict with usability.
On the contrary, I think we will see new wonderful metaphors that will raise software usability at new levels.

BUT knowing what the network is doing is not enough. Debugging the networking stack, being able to trace a bad packet back to the line of code that forged it, is what people need to be able to do.

You cannot ask a friend this.
He will never have the time to do it.
People need to be able to do it.

@alcinnz @Shamar This is an interesting point. It seems likely that a much larger fraction of the population can learn to read code that's written expressly for that purpose (as it should be) than could learn to write it.

I would love to think that everyone could learn to write code, but I suspect that would imply pretty fundamental changes in our society that made it very difficult to grow up as an intellectually incurious person.

This is why computers need to force people to learn to use them

@Shamar @alcinnz I don't really understand why almost no computer game requires you to pick up a manual, even with relatively complicated game mechanics, but nearly every programming language does. We've had this right since Colossal Cave.

@freakazoid @alcinnz

Nice question. I have to think about it.

Not that reading a manual (or a book) is bad.
It's another act of rebellion actually.

But how complex video games manage to not need them? Note: complex _video_ games, because every tabletop game need you to read something.

@Shamar @alcinnz Tabletop games are video games that run in your brain ;-)

I've started calling this "the ramp", though I probably stole that from elsewhere: just ramp up the complexity at a pace set by the user, always pushing them to be able to do more.

And I much prefer when it's part of the gameplay rather than a separate "tutorial level" you have to choose. Portal is an excellent example of this.

@freakazoid @Shamar As a professional I certainly find I can read just about any programming language right away, whereas writing it requires some study.

I imagine it'd be a similar dynamic to a layperson.

@alcinnz @Shamar That's not saying much since most programming languages are essentially identical. The real question is, can you read PROLOG?

@freakazoid @Shamar I've studied it long before I've seen it in the wild (I actually haven't yet), so I don't know if it'd say much if I can.

But yes, there is a remarkable similarity between programming languages.

@freakazoid @alcinnz

> I would love to think that everyone could learn to write code, but I suspect that would imply pretty fundamental changes in our society that made it very difficult to grow up as an intellectually incurious person.

I can't parse this sentence, sorry.

Mind to elaborate?

People don't learn to write because they like it, but because they are forced to at school.

@Shamar @alcinnz Sorry, common problem with stuff I write.

I think that a lot of people end up as intellectually incurious adults, and once they're at that point, they're just not going to use anything that requires them to learn. Maybe there's some way to fix this without fundamentally changing society, but I don't know what that would be. Heck, I don't know how to fundamentally change society to do it either, except that I think that it happens far less in cultures that value learning.

@alcinnz @Shamar It's not true that people learn to write because they're forced to; in fact, forcing someone to learn something is precisely how you wind up with intellectually incurious adults.

My children are not being/will not be forced to learn. I have a 7 year old who can't read, but I guarantee you he will learn, because he's bumping against the limits of what he can do without reading and it's bothering him.

@freakazoid @alcinnz

People learn well what they like.

People like what is teached with love.

But if you ask a kid "here is a pen and here is a bike for you to use now, pick one", there's no way he will take the pen.

@Shamar @alcinnz Kids need guidance. They do not need to be forced to learn; curiosity is literally a drive to learn. You can guide that curiosity, but if you force kids to learn when they don't want to, there's a good chance they will grow to hate learning, and they will pretty much stop learning the moment they become adults.

Perhaps there is more of a genetic component to this than I realize, but I'd be very disappointed to learn that.

@freakazoid @alcinnz

I don't think there is a gene (or a set of genes) of #curiosity. I think it's _part_ of what qualify our specie, but I've seen it on all kind of people, including people with all sort of mental diseases. The difference is what people are curious for. But this is fine: it's dumb to all look in the same direction, humanity needs people learning all sort of different things.

#Math is the art of learning

And #Informatics too.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

For people who care about, support, or build Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS).