Proprietary software is NOT unethical

It doesn't interpret, it consumes. Your analogy is bunk, move on.

I bet you're one of those GMO-endorsing normies cuz "hurr I fucking love science stop living in middle ages xd".

Run the same program twice, observe the results.
Eat the same spaghetti twice, observe the results.

According to which ethical framework?

Ethics aside, you've prevented humanity and other life forms from experiencing delicious food just so you can pretend you're better than the rest of us and use that as an excuse to exploit us.

High-glucose syrup consumer.

That's the solution we need. Each time the software is run, it turns into shit, and really needs to be purchased again if you want to enjoy it like the first time.

Proprietary software = OP's spaghetti with cheap ketchup from third party for 99.99
Proprietary chinese software = noodles with arsenic and nanobots that infiltrate your brain and organs.
Systemd = deep-fried butter spaghetti with 1 million pages recipe.
BSD-licenced software = your wife's delicious spaghetti recipe stolen by OP
Suckless software = healthy chicken-veg salad with 1-page recipe.

But we already have the cloud :^)

Give me proof that GMO's are harmful

(you can't because they aren't)

Any vegan options?

*WHEEZE* Y-yes...sorry I'm just lightheaded *COUGH* *COUGH*

The spaghetti isn't secretly logging your keystrokes, you (((idiot))).

You don't know what marxism is.
And the GPL license is objectively less free than the BSD licence. That's fine, I'm not against the GPL license existing, but I'm not against proprietary software existing either.

Proprietary software is an exercise of power -- it harms the users by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define free software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, and can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.

Discussions of rights and rules for software use have usually concentrated too much on the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses software, so decisions about software determine what kind of world we have. Software developers now control the way the world lives, does business, communicates, and is entertained. The ethical and political issues cannot be avoided under the slogan of "freedom of choice (for developers only)".

If I don't know what your code is doing I won't buy your program. I can make spaghetti at home since that recipe has been around for a long time, much longer than corporate NDAs. There was also a time when all software was free as in freedom. I can take my own recipe for spaghetti and share it with my friends if I want and I'd even think it would be cool if they made a profit off it or modified it. Nothing wrong with that.

For the most part, open source software is so bad that normal users have no option other than proprietary. It turns out most people who claim to "LOVE OPEN SOURCE" neither contribute code nor funds to the free ecosystem.

wow Richard you're such a hero

fuck off moralfag
no but i don't really like eating stuff with "secret ingredients". better yet i usually cook my own food. i don't use proprietary garbage to do secure communication for me because there's no point and it's just insecure. as you can see this has nothing to do with morals.

Wrong. They do have a choice. They simply value the convenience that proprietary software gives them higher than their freedom. Something is worth to you exactly as much as you are willing to sacrifice for it, the people exclaiming how they would "love" to use "open source" , but don't due to technical shortcomings are therefore merely signaling virtue and do not actually value freedom.
This is true.

What the fuck do you care if Stallman says it's unethical or not? If you don't want to use GNU licenses, don't use then and fuck off.

That "convenience" typically revolves around the ability to earn a living. While Holla Forums is an abnormality, most normal people are exceedingly pragmatic. They don't even form their own political views, it's easier to recite the ones easiest to learn in their socio-economic circle.

I explained GNU and the open source culture to two normies recently. One couldn't even understand that people program "for free", it just wouldn't sink in. The other thought GNU people should "get a life", but really started to clue in when I said, "if Apple removes a feature you like, you're at their mercy. If they provided the source people would have the power to control how their software works".

Proprietary software isn't bad. You aren't forced to use proprietary software. (Unless it's something to do with the government making you use it for some reason like public school) I don't want to force a person to use Linux if they don't give a shit. I'll inform them of the lack of freedom but I don't want a law. I think most people who want free software agree with this if I'm not mistaken. Most people know they are giving google their information, they don't care. Why try to make them care. I'll use my free software and they use their spyware.

Forgot image

How is this pragmatic? Isn't it simply arrogant and irresponsible?

Wrong you do get forced into proprietary software, by network effects like with WhatsApp. Or Corporations that force you to use proprietary software, but i see that you are a lolbert and therefore restrictions are fine, unless they come from the government.

Where is the contradiction?

Proprietary software is bad even when nobody is forced to use it. I don't want a law to outlaw proprietary software, as I don't believe in adding useless laws to the pile.

There isn't one if the practical goal is destruction.

I'm used to the word pragmatic being used when we want to focus of what is directly observable, so I don't understand how it's being used in this context.

How is behavior that depends on priviledge/convenience more pragmatic than behavior that doesn't?

don't use WhatsApp.

It does indeed depend on the goal, however in general I see the pragmatic choice to be the path of least resistance. Thinking for yourself costs effort, might cause you to have uncomfortable thoughts and could distance you from your peer group if those thoughts are voiced.

Don't fill out those government forms.

I think it's a good analogy. Producers (in most developed countries anyway) put the ingredients of their products on the label to let consumers know what's in it. It wouldn't be ethical to sell products without letting customers know what is in it. Even restaurants let their customers know what they're being served.

It would not be legal, that is the only reason they do it and there are inspections and hefty punishments When it was introduced the food industry did bitch and whine about the government oppressing them and so on of course.

Thinking does costs effort, but it also has an ROI that exceeds the cost assuming you have caloric intake that isn't at starvation level.

People have uncomfortable thoughts no matter what they do. Thinking allows us to choose how to react to those thoughts, to hold onto them, to use them as motivation, to examine them, to let them go.

And by all means, if your peer group consists of terrorists, (for example, you work for a legal business)
don't voice your opinions. (unless you want to stir the pot) Pearls before swine, bulls yoke on a horse.

False, as that depends on the given problem. But you're on the right track.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Could you elaborate? Does this need to be restricted to problems?

...

...

But what if there's a common allergen or a controversial ingredient in the spaghetti? Shouldn't the customers have a right to know what they're eating?

washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/09/clintons-data-driven-campaign-relied-heavily-on-an-algorithm-named-ada-what-didnt-she-see/?utm_term=.dce520dc9878

Software is used to control people all the time.

You mean people voluntarily give up their information

you are required by law to list the ingredients of any food you intend to sell, your straw man argument is bad, and you should feel bad...

You get the ingredients but not the instructions to make the food (no coke formula). A binary gives you all opcodes but does not give you the source.

again, its a straw man argument anyway, i cant eat my binaries after all...

You run your binaries. You can poison food, you can put a virus in your binary. What part of it is the straw man.

when you run your binaries they dont go into you body, you can run a binary twice, you gonna eat your shit too?
also, since you clearly dont know what a straw man argument is, check the link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
after that, if you still dont get it, you should try posting on >>>Holla Forums instead of here, you see, tech people are typically smart, or at least, they can follow logic

This makes it a strawman how

An analogy isn't a strawman.

...

making an analogy and then attacking that analogy instead of the actual topic is the very definition of a straw man argument

oh great now we have multiple straw men, what is this, iowa?

...

What people don't understand is that proprietary software MUST exist...at least, as long as we have capitalism. Because those people have to earn a living. Dump capitalism and bam, no proprietary software.

proprietary software will exist all the same

sorry mate i dont have any fancy autism pics saved like all your Holla Forums friends

quick call them Holla Forums users!

yes, im loosing this argument, because youre too autistic to read the definition of something and comprehend it then apply it to the situation...

...

Great comment. What you don't know, (or what you purposefully hide from yourself (and those around you) ) can hurt you. (and those around you)

calling this argument a strawman [as well as calling you autistic] is not what makes these things facts, what makes them facts is the definition of those words, if only you werent autistic youd understand...

okay bud

the absolute state of you

my argument is that op is a straw man argument
anyone who knows what that means would see it clear as day
keep bumping your own thread tho
show the whole world how autistic you are

bait thread
You'd be a twat but a recipe isn't a tool like free software it's more like knowledge.
Software is a tool, if people don't have control of the tool that guides their life they don't have control over their life.
The code of a proprietary video game isn't released to the public and they are anyway cracked/pirated it's shared illegally.
DRMs on games are made because a game ask for a massive investment (more than any free software) before it's public release, they absolutely need to at least reimburse the money they invested in it,but, adding DRMs/not releasing the code isn't the good way to proceed, not releasing the content would be a more ethical solution and after a few years they could let the content be re-licensed under a new license for the community to thrive. .
Proprietary is bad when it takes away the ownership/control of the tool that the user is using, aka all the time.
Licensed software under a copyleft license doesn't stop one from adding malware like functions.
True the ones who control the users are the ones who control the Proprietary software
This is bait and you need to kys.

cmon, im waiting, i beat off to this, you wouldnt give me blue balls, would you?

Food sustains life. If people don't cook all their own food they don't have control over their life.

The user has full control over every instruction their computer executes. Just because they don't bother looking at the instructions does not mean they don't have full control.

Where is that diable 3 hack then? Seems that most games these days have always online uncracked DRM.

The user control what software they run and what instructions their computers execute. The instructions are in plain form for the user to inspect if they wish.

Attacking an spurious argument instead of your opponent's argument is the definition of a strawman. Whether or not the strawman in question is based on an analogy is irrelevant.

Which part of it was the strawman again? It should be pretty simple. Instead you repeat 5 times

surely a smart guy like yourself can point it out pretty quickly

software is not food, to claim that they are the same or even similar is spurious, it just so happens that 99.9% of straw man arguments [especially the ones loved most by Holla Forumstards] are based on shitty analogies...

Which part of the analogy is wrong? You just added yet another instance of:

You sure seem to repeat yourself a lot. I was hoping you actually had a reason. Guess not. Like a broken record.

read the first 4 words of the post you replied to

you see what you just said right?

What about software not literally being food makes it a strawman

now youre catching on!
thats exactly correct!
no argument made with an analogy can possibly be logically sound...

i gave the link to wikipedia defining a straw man argument
if you cant comprehend it then i recommend remedial english classes

You really fucked up phil 101. Analogies are absolutely a basic logically sound tool. I did not realize you were this retarded.

omg, its almost like the analogy you made is a straw man, and you attack it instead of the real issue!

hahahahahah this guy is a genius wew

the analogy is a man made of straw, he is an illusion, a distraction...

which part of it was a strawman

I have used the word 'spurious' purely in opposition to the actual opponent's argument i.e. to mean that any argument beside the opponent's actual argument is 'spurious'. What makes an argument illegitimate in so far as it belongs to that class that falls under the strawman fallacy is not whether or not the argument is appropriate or not in other domains, but simply the fact that it's author affirms that it attacks a position held by a group of people when in fact it doesn't. Even if his argument were valid, it would still be a strawman as long as nobody held the positions which it purports to attack. And whether or not his argument is valid is very much subject to discussion, since some posters have already implied that they believe in the validity of the analogy when they appealed to the potential presence of harmful subjects in a recipe in order to makea case for free software.

which part of the analogy was a strawman

the part where you replaced software with food, keep going, im about to cum!

which part of the analogy was a straw man?????? Strawman arguments existing as a concept in the world does not make something a strawman.

an analogy is not the same thing as a strawman. which part of it was a strawman

the analogy is being used as a straw man, that does not make them the same thing, that makes 1 being used for the other...

Which part of it was a strawman. The fact that it is food does not make it a strawman. What about it being food is the strawman.

Don't reply to posts you haven't properly read or understood.

Which part of the metaphor does not hold? Simple question. Saying "food is not software" is not a reason. What is the difference that breaks the analogy.

does not break it

*you eat one

the fact that food is being used to talk about software...

not saying its a bad analogy, im saying that you cant prove anything with an analogy, at least not logically anyway...

you must not have read much on logic

I've said nothing about the validity of the analogy so far, nor do I intend to. If this issue bugs you, you'll have to work it out on your own.

you cant prove anything by attacking an analogy instead of the topic at hand, thats what makes it a straw man after all, oh god i just came thank you so much guys my work here is done...

Wrong. Which part of the analogy does not hold. It being an analogy is not a reason. Read a 101 fucking wiki on this.

the analogy is perfect, the straw man [food] that youve set up to replace the topic [software] is wonderful, i really loved sticking my dick in it...

fuck off outsider

What makes food a strawman. Analogies are not the same thing as strawman.

its a straw man because nobody here cares about the freedom of food, yet you make the argument as if they are, replacing the argument of free software with something thats easy for an autistic Holla Forumstard such as yourself to attack...

...

There that was easy you finally have a reason after 30 fucking posts

O goodie here it comes

A fuck great its a strawman because: >nobody cares

Well I thought you were close there for a second. Guess you don't actually have a reason.

actually its the same reason i had in my 1st post, it just took 30 for it to sink into your autistic head, are you gonna keep going? this reminds me of my ex, she used to keep sucking long after id cum just to see me shiver...

Did you read my post lol? Its not a reason

not if you stop reading after the word food, your comprehension skills are just as low as my ex too, oh wait, you and my ex, its another analogy, its a perfect analogy, that means you must wanna suck me off too, after all, if you can make an analogy that makes everything about the 2 things exactly the same right?

lolololo nice argument faggot i'm sure you like sucking and getting sucked

fuck it

*

oh come on you have to try harder than that my dick is stiff again im going for second nut here

wew laddddd

my posts are shit! another excellent analogy! so great! lets build up a straw man for this one too! something about how they should be flushed maybe?

...

when you make an analogy, and then shit talk that analogy, using it as a means to attack the analogous thing, that is a straw man argument, amazing you still havnt read the linked wiki page, maybe it was too much for your autistic brain, heres the simple english version for you instead...
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You really don't get how logic works do you. Incapable of even basic abstraction. You have failed to have even the most simple understanding of the wiki you link.

simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

how is taking something and replacing it with something else not a misrepresentation?

Its only misrepresentation if it changes the fundamental structure of the argument. Analogies are used constantly as basic tools of logic. An analogy is wrong if it is used to make a point that CANNOT be applied to the subject matter. If we were say arguing about pricing of a game and my analogy involved the physical price of producing a bowl of food, then you could say "but video games can be copied forever at no cost", which would be a point against the analogy.

so you want me to attack the straw man too? fine, here we go:

1. you can eat food but not software
2. you can store programs on a hard drive but not food
3. you can see food but not software
4. you can type on a keyboard to make software but not food
5. you can run the same piece of software more than once but you cant eat the same piece of food multiple times
6. food cant spy on you but software can
7. you can live without software but not food
8. software requires logic and food does not
9. you can make food from animals plands and fire but software needs electricity

i can do this all day, because food is not software, it can not replace software in an argument...

Not a single one of the reasons you listed changes anything about the argument. Name a reason that invalidates the argument. The fact that something is not the same color as something else is not relevant when talking about taste. The fact that something is not the same height as something else is not relevant when talking about how long its hair is.

is getting much closer to an argument

the point is that all that is just talk about food, and food has nothing to do with software, the burden of proof here lies with you...

Food is pretty similar to software in many ways. Food can have a secret recipe but a public composition list. For example you can break down pepsi and see its composition, hell its even printed on the bottle. Just because you have the ingredients does not mean you have the recipe. You cant tweak it or make new coke.

With software you have a binary which you can break down and show the opcode composition of it. That does not mean that you could modify very easily, and in the case of DRM you also cant redistribute it.

Food is certainly more important than computers yet private recipes are still allowed and fine. A food company could poison you. A software repository could put viruses in your code.

A person can decide what food they want to eat, they can decide what software they want to run.

none of that explains how you can replace software with food in an argument about freedom

I just explained how they were similar in an argument about freedom.

just because you did it doesnt mean you explained how it is logically sound to do so

I explained many of the relevant structural relationships between food and software. Analogies are valid logic so long as the argument for them does not depend on something that cannot exist similarly in the other. Not being able to eat software is for example not relevant because the argument does not hinge on needing to eat the food.

the argument hinges on the fact that you run software on a computer, again you seem similar to my ex, but i dont expect you to suck my dick now do i?

What about it running on a computer invalidates the argument

I am not a woman and am not gay so using me as an analogy has a few flaws in relationship to dick sucking

shifting the burden of proof again?
because its
dont waste your time explaining how eating food is like running software either, because i pointed out the flaws in that earlier, it has nothing to do with computers and can only be done once per food item...

what exactly about that changes anything

and nothing about you being a straight man makes it not possible for you to suck my dick

Na it won't be possible with you so low on your knees looking up at me

you still after alllll this time have not given a reason besides

retard level

ill see you later in >>>Holla Forums

btfoooooo

kek moron learn to read

...

if literally anyone else thinks that comparing software to food isnt a straw man argument, let them reply to this thread, im going to sleep now ive busted 2 nuts here, my left arm is numb from stroking my dick, and my fingers are numb from typing to this fool...

oogaa booga muh dick
oogaa booga muh dick
oogaa booga muh dick

...

go ahead and wait here for somebody to agree with you, with any luck, youll eventually starve to death from not having eaten enough software...

...

Please take a moment and rewatch this video.
software is like a recipe

That demanding software to be free means we demand food recipes to be published. We do not, a video where Stallman illuminates the differences, that you try to obscure with your analogies your types love so much, was posted. Go back to sucking off Rand, Holla Forumstard

Wrong. They are used as tools of rhetoric to convince retards, like on Holla Forums. Since two distinct ideas are not the same, replacing one with the other will ALWAYS be a misrepresentation intended to make the audience see what the sophist wants them to see while obscuring what he wants to hide. Once his analogy has been accepted, he goes and replaces it with the original again. This is not logically sound, because the replacement was invalid the arguments about the replacement do not apply to the original.

All the bootlicking libertarians defending proprietary/cuck license are from pol though.

you guys are worse than the fags on pol that say muh jews in response to every argument against them. its a level of braindead I hoped humanity had beaten

Checkmate Holla Forums. :^)

This is no joke what the tech people at my mother's government job thinks. She schedules the load for our dams

Not only that, the hackers can just put backdoors into FLOSS code because the it is public.

"Private property is an exercise of power -- it harms the proletariat by denying their freedom. When the proletariat lacks the freedoms that define the communist system, they can't tell what the bourgeois is doing, can't check for possible forms of exploitation. If something breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the owner to exercise his power to do so. They can't help each other improve the property.

Discussions of rights and rules for the distribution of capital use have usually concentrated too much on the interests of the bourgeois alone. Few people in the world work in are product designers, and fewer still are owners of industry. But the entire developed world now needs and uses products, so decisions about the distribution of those products (and thus of capital) determine what kind of world we have. The bourgeois now control the way the world lives, does business, communicates, and is entertained. The ethical and political issues cannot be avoided under the slogan of "freedom of choice (for the bourgeois only)"."

Take a look in the fucking mirror sometime, will you? Look. I like free software, but you have a right to make that software non-free, and that's okay. I personally use whatever software I think is best for the job and most people do too. And I use a lot of free software because of the benefits it has and because, a lot of the times, in the long run, it ends up being better than proprietary software.

And if you want to use only free software because you are paranoid about viruses and tracking and what not, that's fine. But seriously, when's the last time you personally checked the code of a piece of software to make sure it doesn't track you?

...

I don't really think there's going to be an answer. In a world of increasing shitskins, whereby the relative prevalence of asians {kikes, chinks, designateds, spics, etc} and africans is increasing, there is little total man power left for useful free software. The custodians are overrun. The cucks, sjw, betas - perpetual ungrateful children by any other name - also don't help the picture in the slightest.

All the energies of computation, with end-to-end silicon manufacturing from design to end-user, from distribution, to currency/account payment systems and scheduling, all require their own might at each level. The components need to be appropriate and considerate of the State of Man, but that's a sad joke. Advanced hardware and software systems have been regressing since roughly 2003. There are relative ups and downs, with some staving off the workloads of dealing with the hoards of lying pottering liars by closing all open and merchantable distribution (going dark, dedicated, etc), but this doesn't work for long: The cost of some infrastructure component goes up, looses ownership, and total work must increase, or bail.

In this iterative and serial shithole environment, both proprietary software and open software alike easily make themselves unethical. They are all grinding into dust, and the total poverty is rising without cessation.

No one would object, nor have reason to, if Chrome was still staffed by the teams that first made it. Same with all of Google, Microsoft, and Amazon systems. No so much for Apple. Regardless, they were replaced. And since replacement, their code as coasted on the vitality built into the legacy, slowly fading over time to varying degrees. The entire internet hardware infrastructure suffers the same.

'Ethical' almost seems like a pointless distinction. All must build, build servers, build services, build fabs, build production, build trade networks, build currency and company. Build might, --and-- keep it. Do not let any fall into asian {kike, kazakh, chink, by any other name} or cuck hands. And iterate. I don't know what to call this, but I'm certain 'ethic' in the context of the OP is a luxury not affordable for over 10yrs, let alone the next 10yrs.

We're going to have to kill alot of asiatics, if you want to consider such lofty definitions of 'ethic' ever again.

u w0t m8

did you not answer your own strawman, with that strawman?

The nature of any given proprietary stems from the nature of the people behind it. With enough shit rolling down hill, ethic (in the terms of the OP) becomes impossible to determine in a shithole.

tldr: You, nor I, actually care any more.

First, there's no such thing as "ethical correctness". Ethics is a made up term. Second;
I have the right to refuse to eat something if I'm not told what it contains and how it's made. Eating it would be stupid otherwise, so using closed source software is stupid. It might be poison or completely unhealthy, do you not have common sense?

Chrome isn't the only example. See µTorrent, Ghostery, Windows.
The thing is that you don't know if it's malicious unless you see the source code. You do have to understand at least some code, but for anyone interested it's significantly easier to check for malicious behavior and the idea is that such behavior would be reported.

And this is where you need to understand the difference between closed source and proprietary. And this is VERY IMPORTANT for you to understand. You CAN have an open source product and still use a proprietary license. The source would be there to make sure the end user can confirm it's not malicious, and adapt it to their needs. See: Unreal Engine 4.

Of course, I also think that patents and intellectual property itself is a totalitarian cancer. If I were to invent the same recipe you, or reverse engineered it, you shouldn't have the right to deny me using it and selling it.
But this is beside the point. As long as they do exist I'm still open for open source proprietary software. Now before you make arguments like "what if someone steals the code", someone can steal your products anyway. DRM never works and there will always be "pirates". And, since intellectual property is a thing you can always sue the people who steal code from you.

None of you have any clue whether something like firefox has malicious code because the codebase is a abominable behemoth that would take you the rest of the year to shift through for hidden kike schemes.

Hammers can't be obfuscated, retard.

Nah, it would take longer than that. Firefox took an estimated of 11784 years of work so far. openhub.net/p/firefox Even if everyone on Holla Forums started looking through the source it would take 30 years in best case. It would probably took even longer to get an idea of what the code is actually doing.

what if you put arsenic in the spaghetti? shouldn't I be allowed to see the recipe after I buy a dish of spaghetti, or before hand?

The problem is that you never know in advance, and by definition can't know in advance.
And a prime example had just happened:

I believe regulations are fine unless they come from the government, because a corporation can by definition not tell you to do anything.

When you're working for a corporation of course you have to use what software they want you to use. That's just common fucking sense. But you can work yourself up to management and propose the use of FOSS. I'm sure they'd take you very seriously.

As for WhatsApp. Nobody's forcing you to use it. However, you're going to probably have to, and you're going to have to use it because it's just better than anything else out there.

hmmm...

No, you have to use it because everyone else uses is it. Communication is a natural monopoly, what makes it "good" is that it has the widest network. You just have the deep belief that the world is a meritocracy.
Your problem is that you simply define "force" to be anything that is done by the government while any other force that is used to pressure you to act a certain way (e.g. at the threat of getting fired) is just "a free choice" or something, even though this distinction is completely artificial and nonsensical. You can go and blow up a federal building, nobody is "forcing" you not to either if you were actually consistent and intellectually honest.

why the fuck are you guys even bothering to respond to this obvious straw man argument anyway? dont feed the trolls, let this thread die.

it's shit, if you think about it

you forgot to sage, but so did i, lets strive to improve.

Worse than Wire and Riot.im. Anything that needs SIM cards to work is garbage.

finally this garbage thread was off the front page why would you bump it back to the top?

Anything better out there? The only thing I'm aware of is Signal, but that's never going to go mainstream, because it marketed itself as an esoteric thing for people who want privacy.

I have many friends/family members who don't use WhatsApp. Guess how many difficulties they have in reaching people? 0. It's just more convenient to reach people on WhatsApp.

Wrong. I have like 12 apps on my phone which I can use to communicate with people through text messages and out of those 6 are more than fairly common (SMS, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Skype, Snapchat (don't judge me, I need it for various complicated reason), Gmail).

SMS is by almost by definition wider than WhatsApp. And yet people use WhatsApp more than SMS. Hmmmm.....

Yes (wherever the government doesn't intervene). Proof that that's not the case?

No. If Facebook held a gun to my face and said "Use WhatsApp, or else... that'd be force." that'd be force. The difference is that the government can not not do that. If you genuinely think that companies can afford to have employees use whatever companies they so choose you're naive af man. By that same logic could you not say that, in the case of a cashier, the employer was forcing you to bee happy, and that's an infringement on your rights?

Name one way in which I was inconsistent.

The NSA is not in my spaghetti.
Also there are frequently product recalls for foods, proprietary contaminated food has killed children and the elderly before.

proprietary vitamin B12 pills = mystery ingredients and talcum powder for $40

XMPP for example.

what the fuck am I reading?
also, it's bullshit, because it also wants your (((mobile phone))) number.

You know, when you tell us something like this, there's some explaining to do, and yours is not sufficient yet.

For example, why do most people prefer to listen to shit music? Or play shit games?

Not everywhere in the world.

Don't most use the catalog?

If it more convenient there is a cost to not using it which is not "0".

Irrelevant. But I am not surprised that you use proprietary software, Mr. Materialist.

Tell that to my college, they literally got everyone to install Libreoffice cus of its database suite.

i cant speak for everyone, but i certainly dont, at least not usually, and considering it was off the front page for several hours before that reply, the evidence points to most people not using the catalog.

the number of bumps in this shit thread is too damn high!

A goddamn bowl of spaghetti is not going to upload 'telemetry data' (read: your information and related metadata) to the 'cloud' (read: someone else's server). It's also not going to get remotely hacked and leak information to other parties. And you can choose not to eat it, whereas people are often required to use certain software to accomplish a task.
Additionally, when you eat out you're paying for service, not just the 'recipe', and anyone can make their own spaghetti for like $2. Practically no one has spare time to make their own operating system/web browser.

Still bait
You don't need to cook to know how to chew a leg.
obvious bait is obvious
True but not having at all the instructions means that they can't at all have control even if they wanted to.
bait
They control the installation (at some level) not the execution.
sure go read the full magic numbers of a network card from marvell you'll be sure to understand what it does without any manual or details.

Again bait you need to get out.

why the fuck are you bumping this garbage again?
every time its gone from the front page someone has to bring it back,
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS