>>1099018>I put it to you that this is a double-standard, and if you're not comfortable using computer software you don't have the source-code to*, you should hold books, music, movies and other non-computer software to the same standard.I'll just answer this, since this is the single point that I think matters. As for the rest, sure let's say it's only my own prejudice or taste speaking.
The reason I have a "double standard" for programs, as different from other technologies (books, music, movies) is that computer programs can physically alter the world; they are hooked up to other things. On their own, these books, music, and movies can only "change the world" in a figurative sense and only indirectly. Software can literally change the world by moving a robotic arm (or these days, a backflipping bipedal robot that can open doors), or by firing a missile from a drone or a submarine, or sending your keypresses to a third party who perhaps governs you, and/or perhaps just wants to ruin your life.
I may not be able to tell for certain if a piece of proprietary software is doing these things. Or, I might know that it is, but not have any recourse but to endure it or face something worse. Even my "consent" is meaningless once enough checks and balances have eroded away, perhaps in the name of fighting some muslim terrorists, or catching pedophiles, ostracizing white conservatives, or any other easy target that would be too embarrassing to stand up for.
With open source software that can never be a problem in theory. But more importantly, in practice, it makes for good checks and balances. All technology is dangerous, even when it is distributed among many free individuals. When it is concentrated in the hand of the most powerful, someone who is not a philosopher-king who can be trusted with power, then it is an inevitable and irreversible loss of all freedom over time.
