07:48 <xkapastel> HAX
07:48 <xkapastel> `slikts: a self post made it to #1
07:48 <xkapastel> what kind of witchcraft is this
07:48 <`slikts> xkapastel: just need to get initial traction
07:48 <xkapastel> must be nice having a botnet
07:49 <xkapastel> tbh :)
...
07:52 <simpson> `slikts: So *did* you stuff the ballot box with upvotes?
07:52 <xkapastel> there's some voting ring
07:52 <xkapastel> the first post was a smiley from one of his friends, but afaik people do this sort of thing a lot so it's not really a big deal
07:52 <`slikts> simpson: very slightly
07:53 <`slikts> I don't have anything that could be called a botnet
07:53 <`slikts> but from past experiences it takes just a few votes to get past the initial bump
07:53 <xkapastel> too bad, a botnet is a good application of concurrent programming
07:54 <`slikts> also strategic timing counts
07:54 <`slikts> around now is the prime time to share content
07:54 <`slikts> middle of the week when US is getting up
"Very slightly" means that I shared that I'd submitted it here; realistically a couple of upvotes could have come from that, but I don't know. The talk about botnets and whatnot is just hyperbole. You inferring alternative accounts and pulling numbers out of thin air is ridiculous.
The "inconvenient truth" that the author subscribes to is, in fact, a plain old neoliberal capitalist worldview. It is not an objective worldview, since those don't exist, and it is focused on money and power. The author cannot imagine doing anything for society without being compensated with cash, it seems.
It sure would be an inconvenient truth for them if their blog and business and business model and a significant fraction of their perks in life were backboned by FLOSS.
The author's approach to security is deplorable but frustratingly common, treating security as a feature, as optional, and as something that is too expensive for most software. As a reminder, the author's product is an email client.
To the author's proprietary-software mindset: Remember, in the long run, all software is worthless. Someday, there will no longer be email. I have a box of add-on cards with connectors which will never be used again; I think that most folks do. We know that proprietary protocols fade away, that closed languages wither and die, and that siloed knowledge is never cited.
To tackle the final argument directly: No, the purpose of software is to compute. Stop being married to work; it's an ugly American meme and doesn't have to be how we live.
Finally, here's a popular argument that the author chose not to talk about: What if existing copyright law is unconstitutional? In particular, what if the Constitution's copyright clause forbids copyrights which survive the death of the creator; or what if works-for-hire are inherently disenfranchising to artists? This would align just fine with Stallman's opinion that copyleft is only necessary because copyright law exists; maybe a world where corporations can't take code from their employees as easily would be a better world.
