Great Firewall, Open Source & Socialism
Open Source has been joined for the 14th Five-Year Plan, but I am still not optimistic about the future of domestic open source communities in China. I won’t mention other large or small obstacles for now but focus on of the elephant in the room specifically, which is Great Firewall of China(GFW).
This article is divided into two parts to explain. The first part lists the crimes of policies represented by GFW and clarify how they hinder community development. The second part starts from the operating mode of open source communities, combines with socialist theory, explains the intentions of the current policies, and tries to explain the reasons behind them and put forward some rough plans.
The main purpose of the article is to attract valuable insights. If there are any flaws, please point them out and make suggestions for improvement.
How GFW Harms the Open Source Community?
As of now, the penetration rate of computers in China is still relatively low, which means there are inherent shortcomings, after all, it is impossible to doing develop with mobile phones. And due to the general lack of computer literacy among the general public, it can be seen from the discussions on "internet addiction (网瘾)" and "anti addiction (防沉迷)" (Note: They are not good stuff). These need to be further demonstrated. However, these factors involve a wide range, let's set aside and focus on how existing policies directly hinder the development of domestic open source communities. These difficulties, unlike those ahead, are purely man-made and can be removed within one day.
Now, I will refer to the paradigm provided in the How To Be a Good Corporate Citizen When Participating In an Open-Source Project Chapter in Participating in Open Source Communities to point out how GFW hinders people from joining the open source community.
You can refer to the link above for the original page. I highlighted the key points of this article in bold.
If there is an underlying theme for this guide and for open source in general, it’s that every project is different. Every time you join an open-source project, you’ll need to spend some time orienting yourself to the project and learning how it works.
For organizations participating in an open-source project, each employee will need to go through this learning process for each project they participate in. Here are a few things that can help you get started off on the right foot.
- Join the community. Each community will have slightly different ways of participating and different channels. Read the documentation to find out about the community and join the key communication channels. These channels may include mailing lists, forums, IRC, Slack, bug trackers, source code repositories, and more.
- Lurk first. After you’ve joined the community, spend a significant amount of time lurking and reading the archives to soak up the culture before you start contributing. You’ll want to understand the norms and expectations of this community before you participate. The more time you spend reading and listening, the more likely it is that your first contribution will be well received.
- Understand the governance. Read the documentation or website sections about project governance and leadership before contributing. You’ll want to understand how decisions are made within the project and who makes the decisions for various types of contributions.
- Start small. Tackle a simple bug or documentation fix to start. It will be easier to learn the process and correct mistakes on a small contribution that isn’t critical to your organization’s needs. Make your mistakes on small and less significant contributions as you work up to the more complex contributions that your organization needs.
Now that your organization has figured out how to make those first small contributions, you’ll need to build on those contributions to begin making larger contributions and having a bigger impact in the project.
- Build relationships at events. Relationships on a personal and organizational level are an important aspect of participating in an open source community. One of the best ways to build lasting relationships with other project members is by attending events. There is nothing quite like meeting someone in person to help understand them as a human being on the other side of their email address or online handle. These events have a varied mix of people from project leaders and passionate users of the product to direct participation from many of the organizations through sponsorships, booths, and demos to show how the organization contributes. Most of these events would not be possible without financial support from sponsoring organizations that allow us to get together and learn from each other while helping to achieve the goals of the project.
- Include the community early and often. Some organizations make the mistake of developing big chunks of code in house and then dumping them into the open source project, which is almost never seen as a positive way to engage with the community. The reality is that open source projects can be complex, and what seems like an obvious change might have far reaching side effects in other parts of the project. Any significant change is likely to require some community discussion before it moves to implementation to make sure that there are no side effects and that the solution is aligned with the broader goals for the project. While you discuss it with the community, it can help to focus on the problem, rather than a specific solution, before you invest too much time in the creation of a body of code.
- Contribute upstream. This refers to the practice of sending any changes you make to an open source project back to the original maintainers for inclusion into an upcoming release of the software. If your organization is new to open source, you may need to spend some time educating your employees about the importance of upstreaming contributions. In some cases, people may think it will be easier to do a quick and dirty patch to get something working in your infrastructure and not bother with cleaning it up and going through the process of getting it accepted into the upstream project.
For individual developers, GFW has these crimes:
- Increased the difficulty of getting started with open source projects;
- Blocked communication between domestic and international open source communities (in terms of participating in the community and contributing to the upstream);
- Blocked communications between the open source community and ordinary users.
Many programming websites and software repositories are blocked by GFW for unknown reasons. This list includes a huge amount of popular websites. Amid the list, which includes most popular sites for programmers like Github and Jsdelivr, are all blocked "randomly", meaning that their connection are not stable. It’s possible that you can connect to GitHub one minute ago, but then the next minute you may get a connection timeout error. Anyone who has used the package manager all knows the power of GFW: turtle network speed when using pypi and timeout when using nmp. iykyk. Since Jsdelivr was been blocked, we needs to host libraries by ourselves, which lead to wasting server bandwidth; Because accessing GitHub is unstable，we need to find a bunch of mirror sites… I can continue to make a long list. For beginners, without guidance, it may take several days to build a usable development environment (Note: Just like the first time I faced to Python's pypi). Try to think how many beginners fall in front of Baidu's advertising and CSDN's plagiarism chain when facing programming problems? And for the same question, international beginners may have already searched for answers on Stackoverflow on Google, and it took less than half an hour from the problem to resolution. All in all, programmers in China have to do a lot of useless works to solve these troubles that won’t happen in most countries.
The GFW has cut off the flow of new talent to open source communities in China. That’s really bad. Problems like this are all can be regard to be caused solely by GFW. The fresh blood from the community has been sucked away by GFW.
Sometimes it will cause local-specific security vulnerabilities. For example, in the previous XcodeGhost incident, developers could only download from third-party net disks because the official website could not be connected, giving poisoners an opportunity.
A malicious version of Xcode was uploaded to Chinese cloud file sharing service Baidu and downloaded by some iOS developers in China.
Chinese developers then unknowingly compiled iOS apps using the modified Xcode IDE and distributed those infected apps through the App Store.
Those apps then managed to pass through Apple’s code review process, enabling iOS users to install or update the infected apps on their devices.
If developers in China can connect to xcode’s website directly, then these sort of bad things won’t happen at all.
If the previous problem can be solved through various legal but devious paths, then what about communication with the community? Nowadays, except for IRC, self-created forum, email, and Github Issues, other communication methods with developers, such as Telegram, Discord, Reddit, Matrix, or Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, are all not be allowed to use. These are basically limited to formal discussions about the software itself.
That's show: we can only obtain the source code and binary files of the software, at most could only to give some advices of the software itself and cannot personally interact with developers, engage in deeper communication with them and integrate into the open source culture, therefore, we cannot know how to develop, what to develop, and cannot affects the develop direction of the project and we can only be bystanders. Even Github has been banned, which has already affected the software developing.
There should no one who doesn't know that the mirror sites can't Pull Requests and Issues, right?
As for the issue of contributing to upstream, if we adhere to the above approach, there is no need to discuss it at all. I am also curious about how to provide code that can be accepted by upstream without understanding culture or development direction.
Some people may have naive ideas about developing with pure domestic open source community. But what do we rely on? CSDN(Copy Steal pay-Download Notwork. Note: Its original spelling was "China Software Developer Network". The above statement is a mockery of the style and some scandals of "becoming famous in one battle" of the platform and its users.), Gitee (Note: A platform shaped like GitHub) and QQ? Whoever is confident, let it go ahead! Even if you really make some interesting projects, if you can't promote them to the world, the domestic demand is also not strong enough to support high-quality open-source software. So don't talk about development, either rely on subsidies to feed yourself, or simply die. Of cource, if you can fool the non-technical officers of the relevant department, you may also can get support and survives.
If you want to "overcome" such difficulties, the only way is to climb over the GFW, but:
Article 6: The computer information network directly connects to international networks and must use the international entrance and exit channels provided by the National Public Telecommunication Network of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications.
No unit or individual shall establish or use other channels for international networking on their own.
Extracted from the Provisional Regulations of China on the Administration of International Networking of Computer Information Networks
An ordinary programmer who wants to engage in open source in China must violate laws, which is the strictest verdict on Empire’s open source. However, some people - onlookers who do not know the truth, self-deceiving developers - still believe that the current situation is "reasonable and necessary", which is so absurd.
What we mentioned above are all about developers, and here are also something for common users. The software must have users, and the development of the community must have new users. But our GFW has mercilessly cut the chain.
Take the most basic operation - software download for example. Our community has many excellent projects. For instance, the Ventoy Project, which is a open-source tool that allows users to create making bootable USB drives for multiple ISO files. It only provides a single download link to SourceForge in the English interface. This is because Chinese users cannot access SourceForge, and the quality of third-party cloud storage services in China is also very poor. Here is the list on the Chinese interface.
- GitHub Releases
- Gitee Releases
- Nanjing University & Shandong University Mirror Sites
- Three net disks download methods
Thanks to GFW, it leads to even downloading the software could be a challenge. If a Chinese user want to try some open source software, then he will find himself stuck because it only have a Github releases or SourceForge download link, which is cut down by the GFW. Or even worse, the whole website are cut down, like Scratch. You can not demand a ordinary user to have ability to bypass the Great Firewall like developers, right?
Some phishing website are happy about this. Since the official website are unreachable, they can pretend they are official. Some website provide a bunch of malware alongside that, others even sell some open source software: Python? ￥70! Scratch? ￥80！(around $10). What’s more, the malware is more likely to get the higher rank on Chinese search engines than the official website, because they paid protection fees fot the search engine like Baidu, while official website do not.
Since ordinary users cannot even download open-source software, how can they expect to understand and support open source? You said Gitee? Gitee has no future because it currently lacks support from the international community, and the China's open source community is not enough to support it (if you don't think so, I recommend you to have a hands-on operation). In a few years, it will completely become an ordinary Git hosting website, lose its "communal" nature, and enter a state where even mirror sites are inferior. (Mirror sites at least relative integrity and immediacy, does Gitee have?).
In this situation, the open-source software that ordinary users can access, except some projects that reach the average level, may only left policy-based open-source softwares of various domestic manufacturers of different sizes. For the quality of these software, if they do not quickly disappear from public view, I will collect some representative projects detailed critiques when I have time.These types of projects generally have the following characteristics: non-core technologies, weak or no communities, developed for subsidies or media (Note: Now, we call it funds-oriented programming). They mostly give up after published a few Releases. Their only purpose is to fool the public’s eyes and have more chance to get the official subsidies called Xinchuang. Users and communities are nonsense in their eyes.
As a result, people in China know less about the open source. That’s really bad for us.
Since the connection between the orthodox open source community and ordinary users has been severed, and since individual developers need to overcome numerous difficulties in joining the community, let's not talk about developing industries. Let's talk about how to appeal new people and how to survive first. Perhaps companies that receive subsidies and advertising fees will like the current situation, because in such a weakness of community, they can rely on this information gap to carry out a little bit of secondary development on the basis of open-source software, and then earn the dirty money with peace of mind under the guise of "self-research". Regardless of the motives behind GFW, they have ultimately contributed to the fact that they are selling the future of domestic open-source software at a low price and filling some people's pockets.
The True Intention of Existing Policies
What the Hell the Open Source is?
To delve into the issue of this policy, one must first start with the open source's operating mode. Open source is a practice of public ownership of the means of production, it of course is socialist. Many people are influenced by various liberalisms and are afraid to face to socialism, or simply confuse the forces behind GFW with socialism. There are also "socialists" who are indifferent to the happening movement which can be described as an epoch-making movement in the history of public ownership. As a so-called Socialist Programmer, I decide to express my own thoughts on this issue here.
The following text refer to the description of open source in What is Open Source.
Open source software is software with source code that anyone can inspect, modify, and enhance.
"Source code" is the part of software that most computer users don't ever see; it's the code computer programmers can manipulate to change how a piece of software—a "program" or "application"—works. Programmers who have access to a computer program's source code can improve that program by adding features to it or fixing parts that don't always work correctly.
Some software has source code that only the person, team, or organization who created it—and maintains exclusive control over it—can modify. People call this kind of software "proprietary" or "closed source" software.
Only the original authors of proprietary software can legally copy, inspect, and alter that software. And in order to use proprietary software, computer users must agree (usually by signing a license displayed the first time they run this software) that they will not do anything with the software that the software's authors have not expressly permitted. Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop are examples of proprietary software.
Open source software is different. Its authors make its source code available to others who would like to view that code, copy it, learn from it, alter it, or share it. LibreOffice and the GNU Image Manipulation Program are examples of open source software.
As they do with proprietary software, users must accept the terms of a license when they use open source software—but the legal terms of open source licenses differ dramatically from those of proprietary licenses.
Open source licenses affect the way people can use, study, modify, and distribute software. In general, open source licenses grant computer users permission to use open source software for any purpose they wish. Some open source licenses—what some people call "copyleft" licenses—stipulate that anyone who releases a modified open source program must also release the source code for that program alongside it. Moreover, some open source licenses stipulate that anyone who alters and shares a program with others must also share that program's source code without charging a licensing fee for it.
By design, open source software licenses promote collaboration and sharing because they permit other people to make modifications to source code and incorporate those changes into their own projects. They encourage computer programmers to access, view, and modify open source software whenever they like, as long as they let others do the same when they share their work.
In general, open source is a concept opposite to proprietary. Open-source software can be shared, used and modified arbitrarily then released, without legal risks.
This is an exposition of "open-source Software" that obscures the principle of "Free Software". These principles get more exact description from 'What is Free Software?' section of The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement:
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
In this quotation, we see a system of public ownership. Here, software can no longer be privately owned and used to dominate others. But before explaining this principle, we should first explain how a typical private ownership system works.
In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, there is such a paragraph:
The workers can create nothing without nature, without the sensuous external world. It is the material in which his labor realizes itself, in which it is active and from which, and by means of which, it produces.
But just as nature provides labor with the means of life, in the sense of labor cannot live without objects on which to exercise itself, so also it provides the means of life in the narrower sense, namely the means of physical subsistence of the worker.
The more the worker appropriates the external world, sensuous nature, through his labor, the more he deprives himself of the means of life in two respects: firstly, the sensuous external world becomes less and less an object belonging to his labor, a means of life of his labor; and, secondly, it becomes less and less a means of life in the immediate sense, a means for the physical subsistence of the worker.
Two facts are pointed out here:
- Only by relying on existing labor to survive
- Only by relying on existing labor to create new things (reproduction)
Open-source software, as a product of labor, although it cannot sustain personal survival, can be used to produce new products. One situation is to use development tools like GCC, and the other is to directly fork a software for secondary development. This prevents someone independent of developers and users from dominating the output of using the software.
Let's first analyze using a simplified scenario. Assuming that there is only one compiler: VC++, and currently owned by Microsoft, monopolized, and charged skyrocketing copyright fees, then this situation will occur:
Developers can only develop VC++ by entering company (Note: This may refer Microsoft specifically, the owner of VC++).
Developers can only use VC++ by entering the companies (Note: Those have paid fees for VC++) or paying exorbitant copyright fees.
In case 1, because the copyright of this software belongs to the company, the more development is given to the company, the stronger the VC++, and the developers become weaker relatively. Then the case 2 situation will also strengthen, leading to the company's comprehensive control over the developers, so that individuals cannot develop the software if they leaving the company, and small teams need to hand over the majority of their profits to the company. Even if there are multiple proprietary software competing with each other, the situation will not be much better unless one of them adopts a approach similar to open-source software. It's comforting that the existence of GCC makes the above situation untenable.
The reason of using VC++ as a example is because former Microsoft's hostile attitude towards open source was leave a lasting impression in people's hearts. I just pointed out the fact that open source makes it impossible for large companies to use monopolistic proprietary software as capital and control the software community for profit. In the open source order, individual labor is no longer used to oppose themselves, but rather to establish a public labor library that empowers developers rather than companies. The current development of software can be attributed to open source, so - just by the way - the claim that open source reduces the competitiveness of programmers is generally untenable.
What the Hell Are They Doing?
Now some people are applying their "successful" experiences in other fields, imposing unnecessary rules on the domestic open source community, in an attempt to make open source develop according to their ideas. Typical policies include: ① Ban GitHub (randomly), ② Promote Gitee, ③ Build a powerful (but disgusting) cencorship system on Gitee, and provide subsidies for projects that appear to align with their ideas (all from various companies). The first two approaches undoubtedly limit individual developers, while the third approach encourages enterprises. In a sense, it also reflects the essential characteristics of socialism with Celestial characteristics.
Some people try to use the following reasons to defend the current policy:
- We need an open source platform that is "Domestically Produced", "China", and "National" to prevent Western (inferior to say US directly) sanctions
- There are some "dangerous" content on Github and other prohibited platforms. (Note: According to translator's observation, it's probably some fragile that worried their motherfucking god, the CCP, been insulted by others)
Next, I will refute each point.
National Open Source Platform?
They seem to want to establish a "Domestically Produced", "China", and "National" open source platform and use it to kidnap developers. However, a real open source platform, cannot carry these attributes.
A pure open source platform's operation mode is to act as an intermediary between users and developers, developers and developers. At the time of a software release, the software is no longer privately owned by the author (although copyright is legally reserved, it cannot be used to restrict users) and has become a part of the public software library. So, the open source platform cannot represent the author to obtain such rights. Although Github is generally a commercial platform, it also includes an open source platform, so this part also follows these rules.
Since open-source software is public, then it cannot be national at same time. Since even open-source software authors themselves cannot own the software itself, then platforms cannot obtain the rights that authors cannot obtain to use to oppose anyone, let alone the restrictions of the so-called “Nation” and “Country” from the platforms. If - like many unfounded concerns - the US government embargoes on open-source software, then the following situation will occur: the US government has violated their own copyright laws by claiming that they have the right to handle software that authors have relinquished their copyright, which is theoretically illegal for them; The US government cannot control the mirror sites of other countries, and in reality, they cannot prevent people in a certain country from using open-source software developed by Americans. So, the US government is not as foolish as some people imagine. In its instigation of Github’s embargo on some countries and regions, the only ones affected are private warehouses and other commercial purposes, the open source community have not been affected, the open source community have not been affected：
GitHub is committed to continuing to offer free public repository services to developers with individual and organizational accounts in Syria, Crimea, and the separatist areas of Donetsk and Luhansk. This includes limited access to free services, such as public repositories for open source projects (and associated public Pages), public gists, and allotted free Action minutes, for personal communications only, and not for commercial purposes.
In this way, we can see that establishing an "autonomous and controllable" open source platform is nonsense. The open source platform itself is autonomous and controllable, and those with borders are not open-source, but the commercial part of Github. As long as Github doesn't want to commit suicide in moral and doesn't want to follow the same path as Freenode, it must stand with the developers. As long as the US government does not want to give up its current advantages on the internet, it cannot take foolish actions as restrict open source. Of course, restricting the use of Github's commercial functions in certain regions is also a part of imperialist strategy, but it is not within the scope of this article. At least the open source community should not be embroiled in imperialist conflicts, as those which join cannot be called open source.
Some people sincerely try to make us believe that the current GFW is some kind of "Protective Umbrella", which isolate us from some dangerous remarks to protect us. However, the "dangerous", "isolate" and "protect" in this sentence are all problematic and they cannot stand further exploration at all.
First, is "dangerous" a cult? This statement sounds like these forces only promote their panacea through the internet. In fact, this is not even the main way. Taking personal experience as an example, when I bought groceries at the vegetable market, I was able to get a 50 CNY RMB with cult content printed on it when gave change. Later, I'll took it to the bank and exchange it. Just search online to understand their main activities. For example, in What are the activities of cult organizations there was mentioned:
Secretly connecting and establishing organizations
Establish dens to produce and distribute materials
Inciting people everyplace in order to "speak the truth"
Create rumors to confuse the public
Creating chaos by pretending to protect rights
Spreading information, threatening harassment
Make a big fuss about "three withdraw" and bravado
Collaborate internally and externally and be flunkeys
It can be said that underground organizations are the real main means of these activities. Since the enemy is already internal, they should be eliminated internally. Isn't it **** to spread a useless measure to the open source community?
So, is that liberal? Indeed, these people are also the main targets to attack. They realize that the fist is coming for them, but due to their lack of education, they can only repeat empty slogans such as "freedom," "democracy," "authoritarianism," and "suppressing thought" to defend themselves. These words are equivalent to nonsense, and they cannot produce a practical plan of action. What is the merit of such a scattered fake freedom that deserves such vigilance? Not to mention anything else, let's take the collapse of Hong Kong as an example. It is said that the participation of 2 million people in a city with a total population of 7 million cannot even process an "Anti-amendment movement". Isn't this a shame for liberals in a dominant position? How can we confront 'authoritarianism' without a central organization leading strong actions? By relying on parades and debates can only send yourself to prison and cannot obtain what one deserves. This simply explains that the liberals do not have the power imagined by stupinks (Note: Ultra nationalists in PRC, they usually manifested as unconditional support for all policies of the Communist Party), thereby resolving the legitimacy source of their imagined GFW.
Is that separatist? In theory, they are also within the attack range. But think that these cosplay enthusiasts have the power to practice their claims is in fact at the same level as them. These people, like the liberals mentioned above, are just some repeaters, they simply can't use serious theories and practical forms to find excuses for their daydreaming of separation, not to mention any practical measures, so they can only attract things similar to stupinks.
If some ordinary people are attracted to the above whims, what can GFW do? Stulinks simply want to prove, but the official narrative is so failed that it can lost to lunatics and repeaters.
The above are only some basic viewpoints that can be further discussed when there is time. For this article with open source as its theme, it is sufficient to expand to the above level.
The True Intention & What Should We Do？
The forces hiding behind it have never given any explanation for their intentions, make various people who trust them to fill the streets with excuses for them, as if they can pretend to be dead and deceive others, and things were also basically within their expectations.
These reasons cannot be used as reasons for the ban of websites such as jsdelivr, npm, and pypi that are only used to download software libraries. It should be too difficult for them to come up with a reason for it. So here we need to invite a killer to explain the reason behind it.
The current state of China can be said to be a powder keg. This can be reflected in the article China growth rate falters as youth unemployment rises, WSWS.
According to a recent report by Goldman Sachs, Chinese youth urban unemployment is now roughly double the rate of 10 percent prior to COVID and this could well be an underestimate. This rate could rise rapidly in the coming months and with the start of the graduation season, during which a record 11.6 million young people will enter the labour force, it may jump by as much as 3-4 percentage points.
Last March, no doubt reflecting an official policy turn, an article published by the Communist Youth League attacked graduates for holding on to their aspirations and refusing to “tighten screws” in the factories, denounced their “negative” attitudes, and told them to “take off their suits and enter the factories and farmlands.” The statement produced an outcry of social media with one comment asking whether the author would “be willing to give up his current job to become a street cleaner or factory worker.”
One WeChat commenter wrote: “You should implement the labour law and address workers’ real concern.” This rumbling opposition has yet to take an overt political form. Fear of such a development will be uppermost in the minds of the ruling oligarchy headed by Xi Jinping as the developing reality in China comes into conflict with the dominant ideology that the restoration of capitalism represented the way forward for the working class and masses.
Under the pressure of class struggle, any "disharmonious" ideas will be seen as flames and strictly guarded against. The concept of an open source community, due to its public ownership nature, and due to it organise liberates developer productivity, can clearly be included in this type of ideology. When people in the open source community participate in community work, they are naturally influenced by this concept and naturally become "dangerous". CCP who is not worthy of their name should be very familiar with this situation, as proposed in Speech at anniversary of the People’s Paper:
Steam, electricity, and the self-acting mule were revolutionists of a rather more dangerous character than even citizens Barbés, Raspail and Blanqui.
On this basis, no matter how "depoliticized" and "neutral" the people in the open source community are, under this big premise, it is obvious that they will not gain the trust of the CCP. They (Note: You should know who here talking about.) would rather believe that their followers - various enterprises - can contribute domestic open-source software, and reward the followers according to "loyalty". (However, some guys are still being f**ked, such as UnionTech)
Unfortunately, programmers seem to be very "tolerant". The "massive" condemnation pointed at 996 (Note: working from 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week) actually exposed the weakness of this group: they unexpectedly did not strike. Because the income of "ten thousand" as a unit also brings the unique weakness of petty bourgeoisie, which melts the courage to face even the slightest risk of losing their job: Why not join forces to strike and kill the 996 system.
The danger of controlling these people is clearly much greater than the risk of letting flames spread. As for the development of the open source community, is not significant in maintaining their own govern. If they are willing to shout slogans and spend some money to "support" open source recently, they are just under the pressure of imperialist confrontation. What does it matter to programmers? They just need to satisfy their own fantasies. So, the current approach taken by CCP is definitely the most reasonable approach for themselves.
Since the current concept of open source communities have been regarded by the ruling class as a challenge to their own status due to class struggle pressure, then communities have no choice but to adopt a political approach in response. In a situation where the conflict has escalated to a conflict between the enemy and ourselves, if you cannot muster the strength to make the opponent submit, don't expect to receive any charity. In situations where this kind of movements are not able to start up, the most effective way is, of course, to overcome the influence of petty bourgeoisie ideology, participate in a wider range of organizations, unite all oppressed people, "completely 'propertyless' people… Act together with who are currently wealthy and educated individuals who stand opposite to the world", also the forces of the industrial proletariat. In fact, the latter is already taking action on their own, but lacks a unified organization to lead, it depends on whether there are capable individuals who can establish such an organization. What other demands cannot be considered when possessing such forces?
I am very aware of the limitations of my own level, so I asked a recognized expert IIyich to tell us What Is To Be Done?
Finally, let's end with a familiar sentence:
转载须知：若无特殊说明，本站所有文章均遵循 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 协议发布，转载、二次创作请遵守该协议内容，并参考以下文案添加转载声明：本文转载自网站 极客藏源 的用户 @灰尘疾客 的文章 《Great Firewall, Open Source & Socialism》。本转载文发布遵循与原文相同的 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 协议。