I would be better served if I quit my music addiction on proprietary YouTube. Some would be better served with a paper todo list than proprietary Google Tasks– which lost several of my todo items. Robinhood's users may have been better served not buying stocks at all. Almost all people are better served turning off proprietary ad software.
My point is– when proprietary software is so much "better", maybe we don't need to "replace" it, because while it has short-term benefits, it has negative consequences lurking beneath.
To directly address your argument, I think we need to come up business models that make free software just as profitable or more profitable than nonfree software.
> I would be better served if I quit my music addiction on proprietary YouTube.
Would you be better served by a Free Software alternative, or is the issue with your overconsumption of music?
> Some would be better served with a paper todo list than proprietary Google Tasks– which lost several of my todo items.
Data-loss bugs are a serious issue whether or not the software is Free.
> Robinhood's users may have been better served not buying stocks at all.
What does that have to do with it?
The issue is the proprietary algorithms of YouTube are designed to addict me to music, creating an overconsumption of music.
> Data-loss bugs are a serious issue whether or not the software is Free.
Dead trees and Emacs org-mode are both resilient against data loss.
Seems to me the interests of the user and the provider are pretty well aligned here. A good recommendation engine lets the user enjoy more music, and keeps the provider in business. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic here, but addiction isn't a common issue with music streaming. There's a reason it isn't regulated the way online casinos are.
> Dead trees and Emacs org-mode are both resilient against data loss
Dead trees are not resilient against data loss. They're clumsy to duplicate and are easily lost or destroyed. Emacs is just a text editor. There are plenty of relatively bug-free text editors, both Free and non-Free.
Again though, I support Free Software, but don't see how these examples illustrate issues of power and control.
How so? Emacs isn’t magic. It’s software. It has bugs. Countless things can cause data loss with paper—-rain, sweat, literally losing it, bad handwriting, wear and tear.
These are GNU philosophy pages, telling you how you can better live your life free of proprietary software. Of course it's a little lofty.
But there's nothing wing with assuming high. It's really only because some people have told themselves they shouldn't use existing proprietary software that we have GNU and Linux and all the rest.
Of course GNU can't force me to follow the decision they recommend every time, that doesn't change how their recommendations come across.
> For the simple case, where you are doing your own computing on data in your own hands, the solution is simple: use your own copy of a free software application.
> What if there is no free program available? A proprietary program or SaaSS would take away your freedom, so you shouldn't use those. You can contribute your time or your money to development of a free replacement.
Statements like this are why GNU's and the FSF's arguments often fall apart. If someone wants to do something and free software is not available to help them achieve it, telling them to just not do it is not a good solution. Change requires compromise, and its counterproductive to hold such a firm stance.