• Paragone@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To me, it seems there is a fallacy here:

    • trust because one has no alternative/choice in the matter
    • trustWORTHY

    BOTH exist, and often one has to accept the inferior 1st one, like with proprietary operating-systems, e.g.

    The 2nd is ideal, but if nobody produces the trustWORTHY computing, and only proprietary highjacking-the-world means are available, and one simply can’t economically ( or otherwise ) survive without accepting the only-available-option,

    then one is going to swallow the poison pill, isn’t one?

    Better to continue-functioning for awhile longer, than to die right-now, right?

    that is the “choice” humankind is given.

    Who is responsible for producing trustWORTHY computing?

    Who is responsible for paying-for it?

    Is it a “right” or even an “inalienable right”?

    Doesn’t moneyarchy have the established-right to prevent any alternative from existing, to subjugate/imprison humankind in its exploitation-container?

    It would seem that the extant-situation embodies that moneyarchy-has-absolute-monarchy-right version, and if humankind wants to break that, it’s going to have to break moneyarchy’s dominion.

    How, exactly, would that happen, in this world??