Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Political Leaning and Free Software

Posted by kdawson on from the free-as-in-markets dept.

00_NOP writes "HateMyTory is the world's first political rating site and occasionally gets blasted or promoted by British bloggers on either side of the political spectrum. But here's something even more intriguing: when the right come visiting they hate the site but they are disproportionately likely to be users of free software, whether that is just Firefox on top of their Windows box, or all the way with some Linux distro. But when the left rally to the cause they are more likely than not to be proprietary software users, albeit with a big bias towards Apple. If Microsoft's defenders think free software is the road to socialism, why don't the left seem to agree? As a leftie, and a free software advocate, I find this pretty puzzling."

28 of 629 comments (clear)

  1. It's the exact reverse in France... by Noryungi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most leftie blog (and just plain lefties) are Linux/Free Software users. Most right-wing people I know are Windows users.

    Then again, this is a country where most governement departments are switching to Linux, so...

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:It's the exact reverse in France... by svunt · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Nihilism is a political leaning? I find the whole left/right distinction to be fairly empty. Does is mean authoritarian/libertarian, or socialist/capitalist? If I was pro-choice, pro-decriminalisation of heroin, anti-war, economically liberal but anti-welfare, an anarchist and a Randian Objectivist (I *think* I could be all of those at once) would that make me left- or right-wing?

      Oh, yeah...and I'd totally be using an Amiga


      Disclaimer - I am NOT a Randian anything.

    2. Re:It's the exact reverse in France... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Left wing or Liberals, are by definition a group of people who push change.
      Right wings or Conservative, are by definition a group of people who want to keep the current method.

      Someone who is more left is more willing to use Linux, just because it is an attempt to push change.
      Someone who is more right is more willing to use Windows, just because it is what they used before.

      Before some crazy debate on which side is better. I like to break it down to the following.
      Liberals want to make the world better, Conservative want to prevent the world from getting worse.
      Liberals in the attempt to make the world better could end up making it worse because they push change to fast and make mistakes.
      Conservatives in the attempt to prevent things from getting worse will prevent a new and better idea from continuing.

      Now that is fair and balanced without spin... I hope.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:It's the exact reverse in France... by WhiplashII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How I see it is a little different:

      Conservatives want to make the pie bigger, without regard to how the pie is divided.

      Liberals want to divide the pie equally, without regard to how big the pie is.

      The reason I can not vote for a liberal is that they are saying that they will act against their own best interest - they say that they will act to move money from themselves to the poor. I doubt them when they say that...

      On the other hand, a conservative says they will act to make the total available bigger. I believe them when they say that because it is in their best interests - they take a percentage off the top. Eventually everyone else is made better off through trickle-down effects, but at least we are not relying on a politician being honest about harming his own self-interest...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    4. Re:It's the exact reverse in France... by Zugok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Does is mean authoritarian/libertarian, or socialist/capitalist?"

      exactly, try http://politicalcompass.org
      --
      "I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
    5. Re:It's the exact reverse in France... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The reason I can not vote for a liberal is that they are saying that they will act against their own best interest - they say that they will act to move money from themselves to the poor. I doubt them when they say that...

      The problem, I think, is a matter of perceptions. What exactly is in my own best interest? Is simply having more money in my pocket in my best interest? Or could that money serve me better elsewhere?

      I have no problem paying more in taxes - though it means less money in my pocket - if we get better schools, healthcare, roads, etc. for everyone. I see this as acting in my best interest. Better schools mean smarter people, who work better and can produce better products for me to buy or sell. Healthier people don't call in sick as often. Better roads let me get to work safely and on-time more often. Despite the fact that I have less money in my pocket my quality of life is improved. And not only my own quality of life...but that of my parents, neighbors, children, friends, co-workers... You get the idea.

      I personally think that helping out society in general eventually benefits me individually far more than simply hanging on to my money would.

      Of course...this is assuming that our tax money is actually well-spent, which isn't always the case. Right now, under this administration, even with the tax cuts and rebates I've been feeling that we're taxed too much. Under previous administrations, that spent the money differently, I did not mind paying more than I am now.
      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    6. Re:It's the exact reverse in France... by Brickwall · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I view Libertarians as people who desire freedom so that they can behave as poorly as possible without being called to account.

      Then you clearly don't understand Libertarianism at all. I'm tired of a bunch of overpaid buttinskis telling me what I can and cannot do - if I'm not hurting you directly, leave me alone. Banning smoking indoors at bars; OK, even if the science is dubious at best (it actually shows that the only people with significantly heightened risk from secondhand smoke are people who are married to smokers). But to ban it on outdoor patios? The Germans seem to be able to drive at 100 mph without killing themselves more frequently than US or Canadian drivers. Mandatory bicycle helmets? It's my head, thank you; if I want to expose it to injury, that should be my choice, not yours. I prefer the freedom to make the choices in my life, and not have you extort money from me through taxation to support a giant bureaucracy that then imposes its will on me.

      In fact, in Canada, we had a recent issue in just this area. The left wing parties wanted to set up a national day care network, which of course would have hundreds of bureaucrats, and provide parents with only one choice. The Conservative party decided to offer a system where parents receive a set amount of money per child, and then can make their own choices about where to spend it: at a traditional daycare, or perhaps a neighbour, or to support stay-at-home moms. Each family makes the choice that makes the most sense for them, and the money-grubbing 'crats are left in the cold. Libertarianism provides many interesting solutions for today's problems.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    7. Re:It's the exact reverse in France... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In the US, there was a study done (I wish I could find it, it's in a mass of bookmarks and saved pages and Beagle sucks today) where if you asked people generally what they believe, they end up being rather libertarian. I didn't find that all that surprising.

      I also seem to recall that in one of the many anti-Bush stories /. has posted that went into the wholesale "left versus right | Republican versus Democrat | conservative versus liberal" lengthy thread, someone had a link to a fairly substantial study which showed that party identification was not much about actual belief, but who individuals cared to believe they were like or what was represented at the time, even if they themselves did not believe those core values. Party association was in a way forced, and reputation and association was the driving factor to the party, not really platforms and idealogy exactly but what hinged from them (you see this on /. a lot with people hating Republicans because they hate the war and Bush, or people hating liberals because they disliked Clinton or some some idea they've come to identify as leftist).

      iow, people really want to be left alone and be allowed to make choices; most people want to be individuals, and to the core, we aren't really far apart, we are just led sometimes to believe the gulf is huge. As such, we tend to break that mold when forced to (such as voting or picking a party on a voter registration card so we can vote in primaries and figure who it is on the ballot (leading to game theory having an impact on election outcomes, but that's another issue)), which leads to party identification, even though that's not our first choice; it's almost like peer pressure.

      To me at least, it makes a lot of sense--neither the 2 parties in the US really have the citizens' interest in mind, and are more about group think, whether that group is on the so-called left or right--the party gains power through (oh my gosh!) group affiliation.

    8. Re:It's the exact reverse in France... by NoMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... libertarians know that freedom can only exist when others act with Aristotelian moderation. Libertarianism is based on the belief that people left to their own will be the most prosperous and will be the most successful.
      Ah, so real Libertarianism, the one you've elucidated so clearly and are defending so eloquently, is just as pie-in-the-sky and bereft of basic understanding of human nature as the previous and current incarnations of Communism?

      Wake me up when Libertarians solve the basic problem of people acting like self-centred greedy fucks (or manufacturing constructs that allow them to avoid the problem of personally acting like self-centred greedy fucks) without regard for others. It seems like this is a necessity for the Libertarian philosopy to work, just as it's a necessity for Communism - real Communism, that is, not the forced "Communist" implementations that have happened so far, and definitely not the 50's-style bogeyman burnt in to the American psyche - to work.

      the attitude that libertarians are a "fuck you I've got mine" lot is one of ignorance and stupidity. they are nothing of the sort. socialism tends far more towards this as socialism is basically "this is all you're going to get, fuck you" system.
      See, that's what I mean. Try picking up a book by Marx or Engels sometime; you might learn something your schools didn't teach you.

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    9. Re:It's the exact reverse in France... by drgonzo59 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I have no problem paying more in taxes - though it means less money in my pocket - if we get better schools, healthcare, roads, etc. for everyone.

      I lived under a complete communism. And yes, as far as it worked, we all got a small but mostly even part.

      HEALTHCARE:
      As far as health care was concerned, the Soviets did alright. You would just show up to any hospital / clinic with your book of medical history and you would get medical treatment, no need for insurance cards or anything like that, if you had to stay in the hospital for a month, so be it, you wouldn't have to sell your house, car and blood to be able to do it. Youd didn't get super friendly service with a smile and tons of pain pills but they cured you. I still go back to Russia for medical treatment. I pay less there [they are not communist anymore ;) and I trust those doctors just as much as I trust American doctors.

      SCHOOLS:
      Primary schools definetly better. I came to US when I was in the 10th grade and I ended up taking Calculus with the seniors and even tutoring them. I was a good student in Russia but not a genius, just average. Secondary education was not as good, a lot of the stuff was not up to date. I never went to a University there but from what I understood that was the case.

      ROADS:
      Public transportation did work in the cities. But only in the cities in rural areas it wasn't as easy.

      Of course...this is assuming that our tax money is actually well-spent, which isn't always the case.

      Bingo! That is why it went down to hell. We paid loads of taxes, 30% and up if I am not mistaken. What happens eventually is that 1) some people find a way to not work and still get the common share of the pie 2) the government apparatus starts growing to un-imaginable proportions because those in the government got more than average worker/citizen. All this and constant spending on militarization eventually led to a crash. So total communism/socialism doesn't work. I don't know if total laisser-fair would work either. The giant corporations would suck all the money from everyone. Imagine that all the schools and roads are owned by Enrons or Microsoft..! The answer is probably somewhere in between...who knows...

    10. Re:It's the exact reverse in France... by Haeleth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      libertarians also oppose government welfare because it is unconstitutional for the government to confiscate the property of one and give it to another. it is also crippling to those who recieve as well as it destroys their initiative.
      I'll ignore the "unconstitutional" bit, because I live outside the USA and regard your country's worship of its constitution with bemusement. Discussions of what's right and wrong should be based on logical arguments, not on what some bit of paper says.

      I will, however, contest the second part of your argument. I took welfare payments for about 9 months at one point. Far from "destroying my initiative", it gave me time to consolidate my skills and set myself up in business. Without welfare, I'd have had no option but to take a minimum-wage, maximum-hours job, which would have destroyed my initiative, robbed me of the free time I was able to capitalize on to put my business together, and basically condemned me to a life of poverty.

      So, socialist welfare liberated me, while "libertarianism" would have enslaved me? I think I'll stick with socialism, thanks.
  2. Moding up political items by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some items a Democrat will mod up are generally the things a Republican will mod down. If you wanted to run a Slashdot style mod system and invite both Reps and Dems to your site, you should have moderation based on their political styles instead of an additive approach. For example: Dems mod an article up 77 points, while Reps mod it down 20. For Democrats, it will be a prime article to read. For Republicans it won't even show up. I think this may be the future of moderation on websites. It doesn't have to stop with just Democrats and Republicans, there are tons of groups that are at odds, or simply different than mainstream.

    --
    God spoke to me.
  3. It's ... by Freshkid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...a symptom of the subtle switching of poles that has taken place in politics over the past few decades.

  4. Re:Easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I always found that kind of screwed up. It's like poor people are (economically) right-wing for the same reason poor people play the lottery. I can't think of any other good reason for it.

  5. My experiences by ZakuSage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a libertarian who is often confused as a right-winger, I've been a Mozilla/Firefox user for 5 years and a Linux user for 3 years now. Maybe it has something to do with "rightys" and libertarians prefering less restrictions in every day life and this carrying over into the software realm.

  6. Re:The education connection by ductonius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Education level correlates with leftward politics,

    *Theoretical* education correlates leftward with politics. *Practical* education correlates rightward in politics.

    Try telling a Class A nuclear welder that he's uneducated. You won't get very far. It's also very likely that he and all his buddies vote to the right. They're also very likely to vote the same way as the engineering, business and finance faculties of any university, that is, those university people who have to produce ideas of practical value.

    Higher education does indeed correlate to the left, but that's only because trades programs aren't counted and there are far more theoretical subjects in universities than practical ones.
  7. Re:Easy... by Simonetta · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is half correct. It is more the difference between (in the USA) between the liberal arts oriented and the science/business oriented. Liberal arts majors and graduates who have the time and inclination to post on political blog sites tend to be willing to pay the extra money to get a Mac, while business/science/technology types either can or know people who can set up a Linux system for them.

          I believe that the knowledge barrier keeps the far Right and libertarians away from Linux. You have to know somebody who is into Linux to get it running if you aren't very tech-based. People who aren't techies who obtain and try Linux on their own without a support person almost always go back to Windows within a few hours of puzzling over some petty technical detail that the Linux community doesn't even notice. It's a fact of life, so don't mod me down for just pointing it out.

        Actually a more interesting question is the political orientation of those who are using purchased copies of Windows and those who aren't. But the Windows market is so economically distorted that a survey wouldn't reveal any meaningful data. The Windows market is distorted because the price of the included OS is very small when buying a new PC from a major manufacturer when compared to buying Windows as a shrinkwrap product.

        Actually, everything about this industry is weird to someone with an economics background.

  8. The US Left and FOSS by carolsim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I find that here in the USA, many leftwing groups use FOSS, but are strangely silent about advocating its use or understanding how FOSS has evolved as a social movement. As a longtime socialist and FOSS user/advocate I find this strange and disconcerting.

    We do a fair amount of work for the labor movement: graphic design, satirical cartoons, illustration,and websites. FOSS is barely on its radar. I explained FOSS to a District Council President and her take was that it sounded like socialism and solidarity, two ideas she was strongly in favor of. Local union websites tend to be static sites built in MS Frontpage with very little in the way of interactivity.

    That is starting to change. The Service Employees International Union has done some interesting work with Drupal. We're slowly introducing Joomla to the unions we work with.

    We are also working with a feminist-oriented women in technology group and have introduced them to Joomla with positive results. They had heard of Drupal, but knew very little about it.

    When we try to explain FOSS to Left groups and social advocacy organizations we use the example of how the Howard Dean campaign was able to use Drupal to quickly build websites around the country. That gets their attention.

    I'd like to see some real reporting and analysis of the FOSS movement from a leftwing perspective. It's weird to see the "progressive" movement so behind the technological times.

    --
    "What would men be without women? Scarce, sir. Mighty scarce."- Mark Twain
  9. Re:Why indeed. by fotbr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a conservative (NOT a Republican -- I can't stand our current batch of crooks, or the party that has produced crook after crook after crook).

    There's a difference between conservation and what the environmentalists stand for. I support conservation. I do NOT support the extremist policies the green party wants to enforce. Protecting wildlife, good. Transplanting endangered plants to stop something you don't like, bad. Drilling in Alaska, bad with current tech -- I'm open to the idea of drilling in the future with better technology.

    Then again, I'm not like most conservatives. I'm not christian. I'm pagan, and as a result I view nature as something other than being put here entirely for the human race to pillage and plunder.

  10. Lefty != Libertarian by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Left vs Right is orthogonal from Libertarianism. Some of the most libertarian organisations are the most right wing. eg. the survivalists in USA.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  11. I was going to... by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was going to write a post about the political leanings of operating systems, but stopped myself just in time. Because it's stupid.

    Stop obsessing with what other people are doing. Stop obsessing with who they vote for, what football team they rally behind, and what desktop they use. It's no one's business but their own what brand of automobile they drive.

    So what if I don't use the same software license as you? What business could it possibly be of yours?

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  12. Re:Why indeed. by UserGoogol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your liberty to not be shot does not trump THEIR liberty to not be shot. Liberty is pointless if some people have more liberty than others.

    --
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
  13. Re:Left-wingers by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. But neither am I a liberal. I actually find the fact that so many liberatarians seem to think the Republicans are the party to vote for to be quite puzzling and leads me to believe that the libertarian party members don't believe their own rhetoric.

    That one is easy to answer. Libertarians believe in small government. The Republican Party at least talks about small government. It may not actually believe it, and is certainly not doing a damned thing to rein in the growth of government, but at least they are talking about it.

    And believe it or not, there are indeed genuine libertarians within the Republican party. Many libertarian positions were shocking in 1977, to both mainstream parties. Now many of them are standard conservative positions, just in a more moderate form. Lower taxes, reduced spending, etc. And not just economic positions. It was a Republican president to abolished the draft, and only Democrats have ever proposed returning to it.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  14. The two party system by jesterzog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you wanted to run a Slashdot style mod system and invite both Reps and Dems to your site, you should have moderation based on their political styles instead of an additive approach. For example: Dems mod an article up 77 points, while Reps mod it down 20. For Democrats, it will be a prime article to read. For Republicans it won't even show up. I think this may be the future of moderation on websites. It doesn't have to stop with just Democrats and Republicans, there are tons of groups that are at odds, or simply different than mainstream.

    This is why I'm glad the country I live in has a democratic system that doesn't automatically dismiss anyone who doesn't fit into one of two main categories, but actually fosters a government that's formed by people with all kinds of different views, in a structure that actually encourages them to negotiate and work together.

    I don't mean to criticise you personally, but I think the fact that you leapt straight to the democrat/republican divide, just as everyone else does when referring to the US federal political system, exemplifies one of the biggest problems with the US Federal democracy. Most people seem to be so accepting of the status quo that there's little or zero opportunity for anyone different to have a chance. This results in large amounts of inefficiency and corruption, and a system where it's not possible to get anywhere in politics without aligning oneself with one side or the other.

    If that isn't enough, people's alignments are thrown around to score political points. For instance, it shouldn't be an issue that Bush's Science Advisor is a democrat, but it's been a fallacy used over and over again to justify that Bush's science policies must somehow be "scientifically neutral" and fair to all. Everyone who's analysed by the media is thrown into one of the two sides, and the have to be on one side or the other or they get dismissed and ignored as irrelevant.

  15. Re:Why indeed. by BeBoxer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Next to the things Bush has done we can contrast stuff like the Clipper Chip from the current liberal darling, Al Gore. Government monitoring of all encrypted communications? Al Gore really did invent that.

    I'm wondering, do you have a source for that? Because from what I can tell, the Clipper Chip was in full swing in 1992. Which was, ahem, before Gore was in the White House.

    FOIA Document from the FBI dated December 1992. Curiously, this document suggests that the FBI did not seek explicit approval from the Bush administration at the time because that might encourage the incoming Clinton administration to dismiss the policy out of hand. Clearly the Clinton administration did eventually sign off on the program, but "Gore really did invent that" is clearly a false statement.

  16. Re:Left-wingers by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem with the Libertarian Party (big L) is that they're run by ideological purists. They've got about much chance of winning as the Green Party does with a purist progressive environmentalist candidate. Bother parties will get just enough votes to keep themselves on the radar, but neither will be able to win until the field pragmatic realist candidates.

    The average voter could support a tax cut, but the Liberatarian Party wants to abolish the IRS. Too extreme. The average voter could support marijuana decriminalization, but the LP wants to legalize all drugs. Too extreme. The average voter could support school vouchers, bu the LP wants to eliminate all public education. Too extreme. There is a strong individualist streak in the American psyche, but there is not an anarchist streak. The LP needs to stop appealing to anarcho-capitalists and start appealing to individualists.

    Either the Libertarian Party reforms, or libertarians will gravitate to other parties.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  17. Good capitalists, they are by DeDuvel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Proof that free marketeers are smarter than left-liberals? ;-)

    But seriously, most free (as in libre) software is also free (as in gratis). Any good capitalist would choose a product that (i) performs as desired, (ii) comes with the least restrictions and fine print, and (iii) is cheaper than alternatives. IMHO, the price/performance of a FLOSS platform such as Ubuntu with Firefox and OOo can't be beat. Windows loses on (i), (ii) and, of course, (iii). Office loses on (ii) and (iii), which on balance is probably enough to justify not using it. Don't know about IE. It just sucks too much to even rate it.

    Disliking Microsoft's software doesn't require denying the company's right to act however it sees fit. By contrast, using FLOSS software doesn't require buying into a socialist mindset, which may seem common among its practitioners but isn't essential. I can imagine many FLOSS users who wouldn't dream of releasing their own work under the GPL if that meant starving, or who'd only release some after-hours hacking under the GPL.

    Besides, the GPL establishes IP in the form of copyright, and explicitly limits the rights others have to it anyway. Just like one would do with copyright work released under a different (eg. commercial) licence. There's nothing inherently anti-market about FLOSS, so nothing that need inherently scare off right-leaning people. Oh, did I mention it's often free?

  18. I am right wing by Ian+McBeth · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just look at my post in /. politics and my bad karma rating :)

    Frankly I think you socialists make better software than the capitalists in Redmond :)
    That and even a right winger like me knows it is not a good idea for one Individual/Company to control information flow.

    cheers