• archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        “You either pay for an app with money or with privacy” is just factually incorrect

        There are lots of apps that do not require you to pay for with either your privacy or your currency.

        Example: you are using an open-sourced application right now that is both free and private.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It is not free. It takes a ton of time to build and maintain this software.

            labor value != commodity value

            If you’re thinking all software developers will switch philosophies suddenly to think like you, I don’t really know what to tell you other than that will absolutely never happen.

            Nobody is suggesting otherwise, it is simply incorrect to say the consumer always pays for an application. There are many apps and software that is free to use and modify, and you do not always pay with your time or your privacy.

            Ps. Did you really think there was a chance you needed to remind me Lemmy is not commercial software?

            It was a convenient counterexample to the point being made.

            Pps. I typically use boost to view Lemmy and that is commercial software. Showing there is no need to expect everyone to develop all software for free. $3 was a fuckin bargain

            Yup, but Lemmy itself is free to use or adapt.