this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
894 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
60080 readers
3358 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They exist to make money not help humanity. Open source don’t make them money so they will never bother
From the article...
EDIT: For those challenging what I am saying, I was speaking towards his motives, when I responded to this comment …
I was challenging the notion that he did not care about humanity, and just wanted the money.
Its ok to want to help others AND make money doing it. (Unfortunately) We live in a society where money is needed to exist.
EDIT2: I'm all for open source.
“he spun off the company Second Sight with three cofounders in 1998”
The rest of the sentence from your quote. The company that put these implants into people was, from what I understand, indeed for profit.
Kind of hard to operate a company without also making money doing so. The two are not mutually exclusive to each other.
He should have made it open sauce
Non-profits, just like for-profits, need to keep revenue at or above expenditures. Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.
Feel free to enlighten them on how to run a beneficial company with no income.
Government grants... A là Lockmart.
I'm going to push back against this part of your comment. You are making an assumption. You can do both, help Humanity AND make money (since we live in a society that requires money to exist).
You're giving a roundabout justification for regulation.
It should not be their choice when are discussing items/services that impact health this directly. Buy the ticket (release product and profit) take the ride (support for the life of installed user base at least).
Regulation is the only way the capitalist model works. Think about it, limiting capitalism is a majorly important part of making any part of it work because it's so backwards.
I vote for parties that are pro-opensource and promote opensource among friends and family. It's all I can do.
What if the party is also for child murder?
And what if the other one who is against child murder is also anti-open source?