I just bought a new Fairphone 3, and the experience inspired me to write the following on their official forum. I think I was called to do this mainly because I really like th project and think it's a shame they focus so little on free software, now they've apparently got so many other things right.
"I just received my FP3, and it’s a lovely device, following suit on FP1 and FP2, both of which I’ve owned (the FP1 is bricked, the FP2 reboots randomly and needs a new mike - I suppose the mike could be fixed, but I dont know abt the restarts).
Anyway, I really like the device and the work Fairphone is doing for a fairer production cycle and a fairer product in terms of repairability.
However, in one respect I believe the phone is /not/ fair: It comes preloaded with Google’s Android including the full Google Apps suite - i.e., with a proprietary OS and a set of proprietary and very surveillance-heavy apps. Negatively, one might say it by default comes loaded with spyware. I don’t get how that is fair. As a long-standing free software activist and current member of the General Assembly of Free Software Foundation Europe (talking here, though, solely in my private capacity) I think that “fair” software is free - as in freedom, i.e. with all source code available.
On the other hand, I get that many users want the comfort and efficiency in the Google App suite. The FP1 came with only free software from the AOSP project and a link to install Google Apps. I thought that was fair.
Alternatively, you - Fairphone the organization - could sell FP3s preloaded with LineageOS or Sailfish OS or one of the other Google-free alternatives.
I do realize that I can install one of those on the phone myself and will probably also end up doing so. But honestly, I don’t think it is reasonable by the standards of a project that declares itelf to be /the/ fair phone - to put it like that, I don’t think it is FAIR - that the general, non-tech-savvy public can’t buy a fair and ethical phone that doesn’t by default opt them in to Google’s global surveillance circus.
All the best and congratulations with all the cool things in the project, Carsten"
On Sunday, 7 March 2021 17:26:40 CET Carsten Agger wrote:
I just bought a new Fairphone 3, and the experience inspired me to write the following on their official forum. I think I was called to do this mainly because I really like th project and think it's a shame they focus so little on free software, now they've apparently got so many other things right.
I remarked on a lack of emphasis from Fairphone on Free Software a few times before and then felt a bit bad doing so. After all, how can people criticise an organisation working for fairer labour practices, responsible sourcing of raw materials, and who generally try to take responsibility for the ecological impact of their own products?
Then again, thinking back to some discussions we had on this list a few years ago where there were discussions about the societal impact of surveillance capitalism and proprietary social media platforms, Fairphone acts as a good illustration of how people can encourage positive change by making people consider others in supposedly distant and unconnected places whose lives are not necessarily made better by "technological progress".
(It also illustrates the need for a coherent and broad approach by initiatives trying to achieve positive change, but more on that in a moment.)
Now, I seem to remember the usual excuses about why services like Facebook and Twitter were acceptable venues for Free Software advocates. Indeed, the Free Software Foundation recently brought some of these out themselves:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/new-changes-to-twitter-make-it-even-wors...
The "we need to reach out" excuse ignores that by "reaching out", people are dignifying proprietary platforms that are routinely used for (and even optimised for) a catalogue of nasty things like bullying, harassment, propaganda, and so on. From a single-issue perspective, they also marginalise Free Software and genuinely open alternatives for communication, thus making arguments for free and open technologies and platforms even harder to make.
But even on an individual level, the excuses that such proprietary platforms "work for me", that they "help me keep in touch with my friends/family", along with the insistence that "I don't see anything like propaganda" or "I just ignore it", these all pretend that anything that isn't part of someone's own personal experience cannot therefore be happening at all. Stories about, say, Facebook facilitating atrocities [1] or profiting from unethical, antisocial and abhorrent behaviour [2] are readily met with puzzlement and denial.
The architects of these platforms presumably make great claims about those platforms "bringing people together" - these being their own excuses for why they should continue to operate without further regulation - and yet it is precisely this kind of customisation of individual experience, of making the individual unaware of what else might be going on - either in shaping their own experience or of what others might experience - that gives these platforms popular support and permission to pursue business as usual. It is "bringing people together" so that they may be driven apart.
Just as Fairphone aims to show that while one group may benefit from something, another may suffer because of it, we might point out that while those enjoying the amusements of proprietary social media do so at no apparent cost to themselves, they do so at quite significant cost to others. And as we have seen, the cost eventually tends to be incurred by our own societies in a broader sense, too, with democratic institutions and processes undermined to facilitate nationalism, corruption and social division.
This is where Fairphone and fellow travellers need to consider the broader picture around their own endeavour. It is worthy that those who are generally worse off than the average consumer of the world's wealthier nations get to have their own conditions improved, that they are fairly treated in their role in facilitating a commercial relationship. I think most reasonable people would go along with that.
But if proprietary software and proprietary (anti)social media platforms are an integral part of delivering a supposedly fair device, then the time will come when consumers, steered towards more selfishness by manipulative and malicious interests through those platforms, will no longer see any ethical necessity in buying anything that seeks to be "fair". They will just buy the absolute cheapest stuff on Amazon, congratulate themselves on the "great deal" they just made, and parrot the latest dismissive rhetoric about anything trying to make the world a fairer and better place.
I think it is great that you have tried to make people aware of an issue that should have been addressed from the very start of their endeavour, but perhaps the consequences are more apparent to them now than they once were.
Paul
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/revealed-facebook-hate-speech-...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/15/facebook-anti-vaccination...
A small correction/mea culpa:
Matthias has (and thanks! :) )pointed me to this Mastodon post:
https://social.anoxinon.de/@bruno/105854405626581664
It provides some links showing that there's in fact an official between Fairphone and the /e/ OS, and that the /e/ foundation is selling Fairphones with /e/ pre-installed.
So that's great news! It may in fact be an important step for Free Software on Android. Also, I did not know that when I wrote my post.
But, here's the thing which I still think they could improve: I read the description on their own web page quite closely. I might have done more research, but I'd have liked to see the free OS as an option on the shop page - I wouldn't mind if the option came with a warning against the missing Google apps, but it would be nice if that option were included as just one more way to get this fairer phone.
Best,
Carsten
On 07.03.2021 17.26, Carsten Agger wrote:
I just bought a new Fairphone 3, and the experience inspired me to write the following on their official forum. I think I was called to do this mainly because I really like th project and think it's a shame they focus so little on free software, now they've apparently got so many other things right.
"I just received my FP3, and it’s a lovely device, following suit on FP1 and FP2, both of which I’ve owned (the FP1 is bricked, the FP2 reboots randomly and needs a new mike - I suppose the mike could be fixed, but I dont know abt the restarts).
Anyway, I really like the device and the work Fairphone is doing for a fairer production cycle and a fairer product in terms of repairability.
However, in one respect I believe the phone is /not/ fair: It comes preloaded with Google’s Android including the full Google Apps suite - i.e., with a proprietary OS and a set of proprietary and very surveillance-heavy apps. Negatively, one might say it by default comes loaded with spyware. I don’t get how that is fair. As a long-standing free software activist and current member of the General Assembly of Free Software Foundation Europe (talking here, though, solely in my private capacity) I think that “fair” software is free - as in freedom, i.e. with all source code available.
On the other hand, I get that many users want the comfort and efficiency in the Google App suite. The FP1 came with only free software from the AOSP project and a link to install Google Apps. I thought that was fair.
Alternatively, you - Fairphone the organization - could sell FP3s preloaded with LineageOS or Sailfish OS or one of the other Google-free alternatives.
I do realize that I can install one of those on the phone myself and will probably also end up doing so. But honestly, I don’t think it is reasonable by the standards of a project that declares itelf to be /the/ fair phone - to put it like that, I don’t think it is FAIR - that the general, non-tech-savvy public can’t buy a fair and ethical phone that doesn’t by default opt them in to Google’s global surveillance circus.
All the best and congratulations with all the cool things in the project, Carsten"
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct