[Discuss] EOMA68 Libre Hardware Standard and Libre Software project, currently crowd-funding (deadline expires 26th aug 2016)

[lkcl .]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but, that seems like a different issue to me. What you're describing is
> just normal, run-of-the-mill lying.

 welcome to the reasons why i will be registering a CIC not a
Corporation.  i recommend reading Professor Yunus's book "Creating a
World without Poverty" cover to cover.  it's awe-inspiring.  i've lost
my copy.  i should see if there's an e-book version.

 alternatively, you can watch the first five minutes of the online
documentary, "The Corporation".  Professor Yunus is more inspiring
though.


> Basically, the problem you're describing is that a company offers X with
> features A, B, and C, while keeping feature D a secret because they know
> that disclosing feature D would cause people not to buy X.

 it's worse than that: they *say* it's got features A B and C but
they're lying through their teeth about A and B, and C is designed to
bring them in vendor-lockin revenue due to illegal and unethical data
collection which they sell as "feature E" to a whole stack of *even
more* unethical people.


> That problem is why food has nutrition labels on it.

 it's much worse than that.  look up the story of "Usana".  the
founder was a pharmaceutical chemist, his wife was getting ill despite
taking supplements.  he tested several (because he had all the
equipment) and was shocked to find that items labelled "1000mg" had
like... 4mg *OR LESS* of active ingredient, or they had chemical
compounds that our bodies simply cannot absorb.

 on further investigation he learned that the FDA's "approval" is
based on "This Product Is Certified Not To Do Any Harm" - it does
*Not* say "This Product Has To Contain What It Says On The Label".

 so he set up a *pharmaceutical* grade set of supplements.... fascinating story.


> That's not directly related to the libre/open paradigm. Whether or not a
> company makes the recipe for their food public is different from whether or
> not they lie about that food's effect on the body.
>
> Choosing to lie to your customers is already a standard question in business
> ethics because people have been grappling with it ever since business was
> invented.

 i choose to reject that paradigm, the one which says that it's okay
to lie to people and entrap them in order to get their money.

 and i fundamentally disagree that "that's not the point".  it's the
ONLY point.  we REALLY ARE talking about ethics, here.  it so happens
that it's "ethics as applicable to technology" but if we forget that
and start to focus *exclusively* on "the technology", there's really
not a lot of point: we're just part of the same "lying to the
customers to get their money" paradigm.

 can you tell i'm not very impressed with the pathological effects of
"Articles of Incorporation"? :)

l.