Post #1978069

2026-04-19 15:11 UTC

@smallcircles You cannot architect anything, ever, to only be used to the extent of your own purest intentions. The wetware is always going to malfunction in some way. 😜 Maybe perversely, what keeps the guardrails up is … more wetware. En masse. One of my biggest lightbulb moments in systems theory class was realizing that even humans who may never directly interact within the scope of your design are very much still stakeholders. They have to be in your community (a system) too

Replies (1)

@smallcircles@social.coop 2026-04-19 22:21

@johannab > FOSS has a very unfortunate weak spot in its foundation, that being the idea that “free” implies “without ownership” rather than “equitably shareable” 💯! Just dropped a #meme depicting how #SX considers #FOSS: https://social.coop/@smallcircles/116433599463361421 #Equity is the word. I wrote a blog on #SharedOwnership earlier: https://coding.social/blog/shared-ownership Note, that "libertarianism" is emergent, comes with scale. I avoid the term for its political heat it often introduces, and how that stifles #solution-orientation. > I make product actually meet the users’ needs, cuz damn, you didn’t! It's funny how actual #Needs are often totally unknown, esp. in FOSS. The #technology then quickly exists mostly for the sake of itself. Damn the externalities. Social coding commons defines FOSS as the pure software artifact. Code + an open license. Period. All the rest is #SocialCoding where all #expectations we have are either implied and unjustified, or warranted with mutual understanding. The latter is hardly done.

Open ##1978070