frenet

You can certainly have your opinions. They just aren't very relevant when the entire premise of this discussion is false. This clearly isn't being reported by a US or UK mainstream publication but what looks like a one man operation in Japan. This is very much the problem with hijacking discussion. Not only is there little to no context but the participants get so excited that they can't fact check even the two lines of justification.

Fundamentally I agree with you. But I also think it easy to get the idea that "no responsibility" is a prevailing view. Or at least that it has to be. There are plenty of people who want to do their best. I would certainly considered the author's software involvement to be part of that. It is just hard to do. And increasing hard not only because of software but society at large (like job and housing markets). So the problem exists regardless of various positions on the issue.

Or put another way. If we want open source developers who favor responsibility we have to make it easy for those developers. Otherwise we only end up with people who are fine with throwing things over the wall.

Sure, but then who does the work? No one is an answer but not much of a solution since the problem still exists. Index or package maintainers could do the work but would often also be unpaid and burdened even more. An organization could do the work but most packages don't reach the level where they would get adopted.

If being unpaid is the problem then the most obvious solution is to charge for the index, possibly only for commercial use, like a streaming service. Use some for the index and give the rest to the projects who does the work. As far as I know it wouldn't be against open source as people think non-commercial licenses are. But it would still be hard to do for various reasons. Some legitimate and some not.

I do think this is a bit of a billion dollar question. The way Linux distributions mostly does it is some form of long-term support release which gets less updates but still security updates. Burdening the maintainers more than the developers. However the amount of complexity of everyone trying to do that at the same time is not only crazy but also a real limit on progress.

Still something like that could be somewhat of a solution. You don't need to use for example 2FA but then you also don't get to publish to everyone today. Then you have to do a security update which would require it.

I don't think it is impossible. If I did I wouldn't have made the argument I did. I also didn't say anything about the government. The same situation applies to for example a company. A company that wants to find out how things are going is going to insist in multiple interests in important meetings, documentation on decisions taken and things like employee surveys.

Presumably you disagree, but then you disagree with the far majority of well regarded implementations in the real world. I am about to buy an apartment and it is the same thing. You need a witness, a contract and approval from the housing organization. Because that how you reasonably decide what happened.

And yes, people break the news all the time. For example on Twitter on this very post. That is the point. When they do how do you know who is reasonable? Which is what I have argued.

There is however a big difference in the legitimacy of restrictions. The reality is that their are many unreasonable people on the Internet. Most unreasonable people however think of themselves as reasonable and other similarly unreasonable people as reasonable as well. There are also some reasonable people on the Internet. So how do you know which one you are?

When we can't assume one or the other we have to look at something else where we might reach a conclusion. If someone says they are oppressed we can look at what would hinder their oppression. Arguably this would be things like transparency, participation and equality. As those things make oppression harder.

So if someone says they are being silenced a reasonable person might look if there are multiple known moderators who can check each other, a moderation log to see how moderation is happening or some voting system to reflect the opinions of the community.

In most cases where people are says they are being silenced these things doesn't exist. As such it would be unreasonable to dismiss their opinion as there seems to be an argument for the restrictions not being legitimate. Otherwise you just create a different cesspool of unreasonable people.

That is just because most people leave when they don't like something. In a bad environment you would expect the majority of those who stay to still find the environment good and themselves rational, with only a few outspoken against it. It is a relatively basic concept in markets, sociology, biology, information systems and reasoning.

The person you and the comment next to me are talking about is not here to defend themselves. They are specifically not here to defend themselves because they aren't allowed to. The justification for them not being allowed to is because they talked badly about someone else. Yet, it is apparently accepted to talk badly about them.

Your are even saying that we shouldn't trust this person because they in your opnion engaged in ad hominem attacks. But by doing so you are arguably performing an ad hominem attack yourself. And while you can certainly make a meta argument against that it would be close enough for many not to touch it.

This is why many people leave. Not because it's the Internet. Most of us have been around that. But because it is bad version of it.

You might think this doesn't have real consequences so I will give you an example. Because of the environment on Hacker News there is a lack of successful Europeans. This in turn results in there being an overwhelming consensus that is less likely you make good amounts of money in Europe. But this often isn't the case if you know what to do. It is just that those who do either leave or stop talking about it. Which continues the existing narrative as the participants reality continues to match their opinions. While in reality their opinion may not really be supported.

An environment with one sided environment isn't harmless. It might actually give you a worse life. But the same argument as before also applies here. Those who appreciate this are the first to leave. Leaving those who stay blind to what is happening.

I don't see how minimum wage is the problem. Engineers aren't better compensated in other markets because of low minimum wages but because they are expected to deliver more value. The Internet tells me that the minimum wages in Portugal is 823€ a month. That isn't a lot compared to many other markets. Sounds more like a productivity problem. Or that someone else is capturing much of the value.

High minimum and median salaries are usually good for engineers as it requires more productive companies which requires more engineers. When workers are cheap few wants to pay for expensive systems.