People say capitalism is efficient, yet Twitter has around 5,OOO employees while Mastodon was built pretty much single handedly by Eugene Rochko. Today, Mastodon provides a strictly superior user experience with only a handful of contributors.
Majority of effort at Twitter is directed towards things like ads and tracking that are actively harmful from user perspective. Meanwhile, the core functionality of the platform that benefits the users can be implemented with a small fraction of the effort.
Seems to me that capitalism is actually far more inefficient than open source development in practice.
What a strange argument. You cherry pick single project that is notoriously mismanaged.
Also fundamentally speaking it’s never claimed that capitalist is more efficient it just much more free system that provides more opportunities for efficiency, in other words you have bigger overall pie with capitalism rather than a bigger pie piece.
I think libre software can be capitalistic. Having more software with less copyright creates bigger market, bigger pie.
Twitter is no more mismanaged than Facebook, Reddit, or any other commercial social media platform. All of these are giant companies that ultimately produce a relatively simple product from the user perspective. Meanwhile, all of the open source alternatives are developed with a small fraction of effort.
Also not really sure what specifically you refer to using the word “free” there. Free to do what exactly, and how does it create opportunities for efficiency exactly. You’re just throwing words around without any actual meaning here.
Meanwhile, the goal behind libre software is to keep the code in the open fostering collaboration instead of market competition.
You seem to be confused on what’s the actual product these companies are producing. They are selling brand name and accessibility (scaling).
Free as in freedom. The less red tape a process has the more accessible it is. Capitalism by principle is about lower the bar of entry for competition, more competition, more freedom, more actual work — bigger pie.
That’s only a minor goal, the main goal of libre software is to respect user’s freedoms as being forced to run unknown code on your machine is unethical.
Libre software also is compatible with market competition, in fact I’d argue that it’s a core principle of it — that’s what forking is.
Finally collaboration and competition are two sides of the same coin; what do you think collaboration is? What if my idea for project is at ends with yours? is that cooperation or competition? My goal is to introduce this feature, if you oppose me then we are directly competing , right? I fork the project and now we have two projects that are competing over market.
You seem to be confused on how capitalism works because capitalism is why we have copyright and IP laws that harm accessibility and innovation. The reality of capitalism is that as companies have an incentive to stifle competition, and big companies are in position to do that very effectively. No company actually wants to have competition, and free markets lead to massive consolidation as the winners end up devouring the losers.
And that goal is achieved by keeping the code in the open which facilitates collaboration and the ability of the users to modify the code. I agree that cooperative competition exists in open source world, but it’s very different from market competition under capitalism. Capitalist competition is a negative sum game where in order for somebody to win somebody else has to lose. Open source is largely a positive sum game where different projects can learn and benefit from shared knowledge and resources.
I believe in capitalism, but trying to argue that Mastodon vs Twitter is not a good comparison seems like you want to cherry pick. I think the better argument in favour of capitalism is that it was the free market that allowed people to fund Eugene and all the other contributors to build the Mastodon network because that is what users wanted.