• Jonny@lemmy.rimkus.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I create software by myself and disagree. First it’s very political where and for whom I choose to develop software. Second, software is always made for a purpose and the purpose can be indeed (and is) very often linked to political or social cause. E.g. a software which only purpose is to harm people, say for controlling mass destruction weapons is in my point of view a very political software

    • Puls3@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      software is always made for a purpose and the purpose can be indeed (and is) very often linked to political or social cause

      Its not though, typically software exists to serve a basic function at its core, and it could be used or contributed to by anyone for any number of things.

      • Panos Alevropoulos@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are thinking of software as if it exists in a vacuum. Software that is libre is a political statement. Software that is proprietary is also a political statement. Lemmy choosing to be decentralized/federated/interoperable is also a conscious political decision just as Apple chose to create its own proprietary ecosystem instead of caring about interoperability.

        • Ferk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You can grow potatoes for political reasons too. Everything a human being does might be politically motivated, but that doesn’t mean potatoes are political.

          Anyone can take that same software, that was created as a particular political statement, and use it for the completelly opposite political reasons to make a completelly different political statement. Just the same way as many have used songs in contexts that are completelly politically opposite to what the original author of the song intended.

          In the end, the only thing that’s political is the goal/purpose/motivation of an action, not the result of the action. No piece of software/hardware/thing is political when you dettach the artist from the art and just see it for what it is, regardless of what the author might have wanted you to see it as.

          • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            historically speaking, when you consider its domestication by indigenous people in South America, its appropriation by Spanish colonizers, its resistance to looting by marauding armies compared to grain crops, and the freaking Irish potato famine, I think it becomes quite clear that the potato is a politically relevant crop and could reasonably be considered political.

            • Ferk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The existance of potatoes in western diet might be politically motivated (just like every food, not just potatoes), but that’s not the same as saying that potatoes are political.

              Also, even if the potato had never been involved in any of that and had been always peacefully and respectfully used… wouldn’t that history also be political? Why would violent conflict be more of a “political” thing, when non-violence is as much of a political movement?

                • Ferk@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  EVERY food meets that same criteria. So of course the bar is not high under that categorization.

                  The problem is that calling a physical object “political” just because it can be placed in a political framework makes no sense, because then everything is “political” at that point, thus making the term pretty meaningless.

                  It would be like saying “potatos are emotional” just because it’s possible for someone somewhere to get emotional about a potato.

                  What’s political are human opinions, intentions and actions. Not a chunk of metal, nor the root of a plant.

                  • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Would you seriously say that food is NOT political? With famines being a major driver of social unrest and mass death? With government power being highly linked from ancient times to the distribution and taxation of grain crops? With its impacts on public health and chronic diseases? With the many land reforms throughout history? With the freaking Food and Drug Administration and the Farm Bill and the US Department of Agriculture and the presidential candidates at the Iowa State Fair eating corn dogs as rustically as they can muster? With the existence of the vegan movement? I could easily go on but I think it’s pretty clear that you at the very least picked a bad example of something that’s not political.