@hipsterelectron Existing legal frameworks work well enough for labour protection, I think? Or do you have something specific on your mind?
Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Mar-2025 20:41:34 JST Alfred M. Szmidt
-
Embed this notice
Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Mar-2025 21:54:20 JST Alfred M. Szmidt
@rakoo Sorry, you're just rambling nonsense. Not the whole world is the US.
-
Embed this notice
rakoo (rakoo@blah.rako.space)'s status on Monday, 24-Mar-2025 21:54:23 JST rakoo
@amszmidt
Absolutely not, current labour laws allow the use of literal slavery in the us (it's legal if they're prisoners), it allows not recognizing the subordination relationship between uber and its drivers (thus not giving them all the protections that the "employee" label has). It allows women to be systemically paid less than men because "individual merit" (found to be wrong by actual studies from the entire field of sociology)
In general the law only says what is ok and what is not ok but doesn't do *anything* to go from not ok to ok. It's the actual activism that create change, and a guy pushing for using the law framework against the idea of digital appropriation is exactly that: activism. The conferences, the os and tools, the advocacy, the funding, this is what creates change
@hipsterelectron -
Embed this notice
Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Mar-2025 22:05:34 JST Alfred M. Szmidt
@hipsterelectron The US does not have "literal slavery" -- the GNU GPL is a perfectly valid license in the EU, and the EUPL is not needed. I'm not interested in trolls and their arguments.
The FSF has never "denouounced" the FSFE. RMS is a perfectly valid candidate for the role that he serves within any free software organisation, and seeing that he has not done anything egregious in that role there is no reason to "denounce" anyone.
*plonk*
-
Embed this notice