This is incorrect. What have you given you that impression? Ppl have tried placing OSS both to the right & to the left, but truth is that OSS ppl come from all over. What unites them is typically disliking of copyright - a disliking we actually share with most capitalists.
-
-
My view is that the left seem to have a louder voice on certain issues... of course my perception is skewed because my echo chamber is mostly left leaning so I can't say that with certainty. I'm also to the left, but I think we're creating a negative perception of ourselves.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"OSS ppl come from all over" I'm sure they do but it doesn't change how the ideologies line up or the history of the movement(s). With respect to a "negative perception of ourselves". I'm not convinced, but it's possible of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Jade_Pickering and
If you're interested in what I alluded to above: "Something is absurd about the idea that [FOSS] is apolitical. How could a movement that changes the way software is produced and alters conventional notions about the rights of users not be political[?]"http://www.ocsmag.com/2019/02/27/free-softwares-radical-past/ …
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @Jade_Pickering and
This seems like a place where the term "open science" is ambiguous -- FOSS doesn't necessarily have anything to do with efforts to prevent p-hacking, and vice versa. Thus debates about whether "open science" is political can be like ships passing in the night.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @stuartbuck1 @o_guest and
With respect, I think this is way off base. The open science movement is strongly aligned with efforts to defeat the licensing structures of the publishing industry. The parallels with the aims of FOSS in this respect are very strong.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @o_guest and
Not sure I follow? Defeating licensing structures etc. doesn't have anything to do with p-hacking either. One can imagine eliminating p-hacking with Elsevier owning the world; one can imagine destroying Elsevier (and all other publishers) but with every article p-hacked.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stuartbuck1 @o_guest and
Open science is not just about p-hacking. It's a very broad umbrella that contains a multitude of reforms that work towards separate aim.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @o_guest and
Exactly! That's my point. That's why one person can say, "Open science [meaning FOSS] is inherently political because it opposes copyright, etc.," while someone else says, "No, why would open science [meaning preregistration and anti-p-hacking] be political?"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @stuartbuck1 @o_guest and
Ah, yes I misunderstood you. Yes lots of ambiguity here, but I think that when one has a pretty broad view of what Open science means, it's hard to think of it as just p-hacking prophylaxis. Some might, but that's inaccurate.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Yes, the reproducibility crisis and "defeating" p-hacking are not the same as open science nor open source.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.