487K views · Jun 13, 2014 · 13:40 · 2 HN recommenders · 20 mentions · discussed 2014–2025
Richard Stallman's TEDxGeneva 2014 talk describing how nonfree programs give companies control over users and what users can do to regain control. It introduces the free software movement and the four freedoms.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN uses it constantly as the reference for the argument that either the user controls the software or the software controls the user, and it is recommended as a basic introduction.
“I'd recommend this[1] talk by Richard Stallman, it's pretty basic, but it gets the idea across well.”HN comment, 2015
“I'd recommend this[1] talk by Richard Stallman, it's pretty basic, but it gets the idea across well.”
Basic talk conveying the free software idea well
You and all of the "Free Software" world have different definitions on free. I'd recommend this[1] talk by Richard Stallman, it's pretty basic, but it gets the idea across well. [1] this video
“Food for thought about who controls your computer”
Food for thought on who controls your computer
Sounds very frustrating. I don't use Windows on any of the computers I own. I prefer to have more control over my computer so I use Linux. I still have to use Windows at work, but I don't admin those machines so I don't have a lot of control / choice in the matter. Food for thought about who controls your computer: this video
“Linux, BSDs, and free / open source operating systems give the user freedom and control over their computing experience”
Case for free software giving users control over computing
Windows is closed source, full of ads and telemetry, and increasingly user hostile. MacOS is a mostly closed source, expensive, user-condescending walled garden. Linux, BSDs, and free / open source operating systems give the user freedom and control over their computing experience: this video
“Are you in control of your computer, or does your computer control you?”
Explains the four freedoms and who controls your computer
The four freedoms that free software guarantee are essential for people to be in control of their own computing. Are you in control of your computer, or does your computer control you? this video People get angry and frustrated when a big tech company makes a decision that is user-hostile, but benefits the tech company's profits. This is to be expected because in almost all cases, the big tech company has no obligation other than to maximize profits. The four freedoms help to put a check on the power of big tech companies by providing alternatives that keep power in the hands of the user. That does not mean that free software and big tech companies cannot coexist or even thrive together. Red Hat was built on free software. System76 sells hardware that runs mostly free software.
“Stallman's own words on this distinction in this video”
Stallman on open source versus free software distinction
"Open Source" terminology emphasizes its technical superiority as a development method. "Free Software" terminology emphasizes its ethical necessity to maintain a free society. One is technical, one is political/ideological. Open source advocates don't care about politics, Free software advocates think technical superiority is unimportant in a non-free society. Stallman's own words on this distinction in this video: this video
“Who really controls your computer”
Stallman on who controls your computer
Apple may sell you a computer, but ultimately you do not control it. Who really controls your computer: this video
“either the user controls the program or the program controls the user.”
Source of Stallman quote on user control
As Richard Stallman puts it "either the user controls the program or the program controls the user." this video
“Possible issues like these are one reason why free and open source software exist”
Explains why free software exists
>> if Microsoft were to ban my account [1], could they then stop me from opening my backup files on a new machine, even if I made a new account? If your documents are tagged with the banned account info, it certainly seems possible. It seems like a really dirty thing to do, but there are lots of HN users who are against the Microsoft account requirement for Windows 11: link Possible issues like these are one reason why free and open source software exist: this video
“Either the user controls the software, or the software controls the users"”
Source of Stallman quote about software controlling users
"Who controls your computer? Is it you?" "Either the user controls the software, or the software controls the users": this video
“Either the user controls the software, or the software controls the users"”
Stallman quote on user control
Microsoft is showing that they are really the ones who are in control. "Either the user controls the software, or the software controls the users": this video
“Either the user controls the software, or the software controls the users"”
Stallman quote on user control
Microsoft is showing that they are really the ones who are in control. "Either the user controls the software, or the software controls the users": this video
“Siri is Apple's tool, not yours despite appearences”
Argues Siri serves Apple, not the user
>> Digital assistants do not exist to serve you or your interests. You should assume that your every interaction with one will be exploited in some way for someone else's benefit, or leaked and/or sold to some third party without your knowledge, or both. Correct. Siri is Apple's tool, not yours despite appearences: this video
“It's not fully "your vehicle" if they control the software”
Argues you do not own a vehicle if others control its software
It's not fully "your vehicle" if they control the software: this video You can pay a recurring subscription fee to access features that they own.
“It's not your processor if they control the firmware”
Argues pay-to-unlock chips mean you do not own the processor
"Intel's upcoming Intel's 4th Generation Xeon Scalable Sapphire Rapids processors are equipped with various special-purpose accelerators and security technologies that all customers do not need at all times. To offer such end-users additional flexibility regarding investments, Intel will deliver them to buy its CPUs with those capabilities disabled but turn them on if they are needed at some point. The Software Defined Silicon (SDSi) technology will also allow Intel to sell fewer CPU models and then enable its clients or partners to activate certain features if needed (to use them on-prem or offer them as a service)." Apparently Intel believes that subscription-driven microprocessors will be a great revenue stream. It's not your processor if they control the firmware: this video You can pay a subscription fee to access features that they own. I will not be buying any new Intel processors.
“Here's the original, I think”
Original talk behind a Steve Jobs style remake
This is remarkably good, both the (I assume) human-generated slides and text and the computer-generated voice. Here's the original, I think: this video
“This fundamentally comes down to "do you really control your computer, or does someone else?"”
Whether you control your computer or someone else does
"If your computer can’t lie to other computers, then it’s not yours." This fundamentally comes down to "do you really control your computer, or does someone else?": this video
“It is doing what it was programmed to do”
Illustrates software doing what its makers programmed
It is doing what it was programmed to do: this video Sadly, this kind of user-hostile behavior is increasingly common and a form of enshitification (see link ) of the operating system.
“Because Apple controls your phone”
Argues Apple controls your phone
>> the more relevant point is that it already is my phone. I paid Apple for it. Why can't I install anything I want on it? Because Apple controls your phone: this video
“It did exactly what it was programmed to do.”
Argues software behavior is intentional, not malfunction
>> Your computer didn’t do what you expected it to. Hell, you’re very justified to go beyond that and say that it behaved in a way that it shouldn’t. It did exactly what it was programmed to do. It was not a malfunction, it was intentional: this video
“Copilot and Recall are not what most users want, but they are what Microsoft wants”
Features reflect vendor wants, not user wants
>> Microsoft keeps adding stuff into Windows we don't want Of course they are. Copilot and Recall are not what most users want, but they are what Microsoft wants: this video
