Title: The Economics of Social Participation
Created: 2018-04-13
Alt-Title: Why I Left the Libre Software Community
Author: zlg
Edited: 2019-05-26

PREFACE
=======

What follows is an honest and raw expression of my thoughts, unfiltered
and uncensored. I spent considerable time re-wording and re-reading this
article, to make sure I meant what I was writing. I tried to add visual cues for
topic or tone changes as well, and have adapted the article to better suit
today's environment. In truth, I've been meaning to leave libre software since
2017. I was naïve, and thought if I switched communities or changed my approach
that I could get better results. I was wrong. The problem is deeper than any one
community.

If this article offends you, *good*. It means you've encountered someone
with life experiences and/or outlooks that conflict with yours. You have
discovered the end of your comfort zone. Not everyone gets the same life, the
same opportunities, the same skills, or the same benefit of strong genetics or
good parents. If you browse or walk away from this article thinking I'm full
of shit, fine. But I'd rather you leave this article asking yourself how to
make social collaboration better, or how to make community service in general
more attractive without introducing the same economic pressures that come
with compensated work, which lead to profits getting in the way of quality
and ethics. That is the core problem that libre software faces as a social
movement; one that will need to be solved if the community is to retain its
contributors and defend itself from developers being poached by corporations or
leaving due to poor social conditions.

I attempt to frame the problem in terms of economics, because ultimately it
comes down to a single decision: to contribute or not contribute. Variables in
the environment influence the answer to that question, such as availability,
personal life pressures, conflict within the community, attacks from other
communities, etc. I think it's important to, at minimum, consider these
variables and stressors as possible (and legitimate) causes for someone to
leave a social group.

You don't have to agree with it, but if you can recognize it as the experience
of a frustrated contributor, that's enough for me.

-----

In 2019, the average person takes their online interaction for granted. Many
sites encourage people to join and typically extoll the benefits of joining
their community. They have a vested interest in getting people involved, and
their reward is the ad revenue from your activity on their site.

Other communities, such as the libre software community, invite others to take
part and maintain the technical and social fabric that keeps them alive. People
don't use this software unless they know about it, so you see a lot of people
doing what they can to help out projects that they like. They write blog posts,
tutorials, or even publish videos to introduce the intrepid network adventurer
to the software or platform. In essence, these community ambassadors are
advertising for the software project. Others dig into code to fix bugs, help out
on fora, or other important tasks that keep the community going.

This is normally where I'd rant about advertising, but it's off-topic here.

Since I first discovered the Internet around 1995-1996, I've tried to figure
out what makes people tick socially. Why people are attracted to certain
communities, why they continue to do what they do, and why people leave. I'm
not an economist, but I think there is some level of economics going on in
the background. There is a value judgment that happens with every person that
interfaces with a community, be it as a passive visitor, an active poster or
contributor, blog poster, Twitter follower, developer, bug reporter, moderator,
etc.

Take all of this with a grain of salt. Personally, I have not been able to
integrate with any human group. Each group I've attempted to fit into has had
its own warts, over-reaching policy, double-standards, favoritism, in-club,
etc. Dealing with these shortcomings creates a lot of strife for me, and it got
me thinking about what I think is the most important question you could ask
yourself: why? Why get upset about a community's short-comings? Why continue to
interact with that community? Why did I choose to join that community to begin
with? Or better, why should I look for a community *at all*?

That's where the economics comes in. Psychology can weigh in on this too.

Interacting with a community comes with some sort of cost. Whether you're
lurking (time), posting (time and effort), contributing (time, effort, and
skill), or actively socializing, everything you do in the context of a community
has a personal cost. Time spent debating with an asshole is time you could've
spent writing code, cuddling with your significant other, or sleeping. Effort
spent on fixing a bug could've gone into playing video games or cooking a
healthy meal. No matter what it is one does in a community, it takes away time
and effort from the individual. They contribute this time and effort -- social
currency -- to the community.

Things that have a cost generally have some sort of benefit; otherwise a
reasonable person would not put the time and effort into community involvement.
For example, fixing 30 bugs over the weekend probably makes someone feel great,
like they're making a difference in the community they're part of. They may even
be recognized by the group and thanked. In my experience, however, this doesn't
really happen as often as it should.

What happens when the payoff never happens? What if internal motivation isn't
enough, or doesn't exist? What happens when your involvement in a community
isn't welcome, or the time and effort you put into it isn't respected? Tons of
individuals contribute time and effort to communities that don't appreciate or
recognize what they do.

The core problem when any community does (or allows) something like this
is a failure to respect and appreciate the involvement that the individual
is engaging in. When an individual doesn't get positive reinforcement or
constructive feedback, there's a lack of key information from the community.
Human beings judge their actions on the reactions of others. Without any such
feedback, they have little choice but to fall back to their original motivations
or judge their actions through their own moral lens. Sometimes, this leads them
to question their involvement and the social relationship breaks down.

So, how do you fix it when someone feels unappreciated, unvalued, unnoticed,
or unwelcome? What if there's nothing actively indicating the worth of their
participation? How does a person get a clear view of their value in relation to
a community?

That's all I have in terms of general discourse. I don't have any answers. The
below paragraphs are my attempt to answer the last question for myself.

Option 1: Ask directly
======================

It's not so simple to start asking people what you're worth to a community.
Firstly, people may say one thing to get a reaction and not mean it. They may
see your question as attention-seeking behavior and refuse to answer. They might
pick up that you're trying to find purpose in your involvement and attack you.
Some might offer some praise, but is it authentic if you had to ask about it? A
person could just as easily try to placate you because they fear you leaving. In
a sick, weird sense, this can come across as someone legitimately valuing what
you do. After all, why would they try to get you to stay if you weren't useful
for something? That opens up questions rather than answering them, however. How
do you know you can trust that what they're saying to you is true? How do you
know you're not being manipulated as a pawn in some sort of mind game? How do
you know that you're not being lied to to save face or as part of damage control
for the community? Because it creates more questions than it answers, asking a
community for their opinion of you, directly, is a recipe for deception and
abuse.

Option 2: Focus on concrete contribution
========================================

Another approach is to peel away the social part of the community and focus on
the reason the community exists, so you can measure your impact in those terms.
If you were part of a software development community, did you make anything for
it? Did you solve any problems the group was having? Maybe you did. Did anyone
notice? If they didn't, how do you know that your contribution had value? If
anyone *did* notice, what did they say? Did they follow up with any suggestions
for improvement? These questions apply to more than just code. It could be
design, prose, any number of endeavors. The key thing to look for is: did anyone
acknowledge that your work accomplished anything? Did you have a measurable
impact?

One of the benefits of focusing on the concrete is you can generally get honest
opinions on it. If your solution didn't work, they'll tell you. If they
thought it solved a big problem, they'll probably mention that, too. What if you
ask them the *value* of your work? That complicates things. The person answering
the question can infer that you doubt the worth of your work, and the deception
begins again. It can be positive or negative, but it changes the nature of the
interaction when the other person knows you're talking about value. When this
happens, you can't be sure you're getting the truth.

Option 3: Ignore outside factors and favor your ego
===================================================

Some are self-motivated. They have extremely high self-esteem, and don't let
others rain on their parade. They see doubt as weakness. If you are the type of
person who's optimistic to a fault, then you can easily live with your positive
delusions. Who cares what others think if you're happy with what you do?

An egoistic approach can lead someone to believe they're better than they are.
Known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, it's a form of self-deception.

Further, one's ego is not always on their side. When one favors their ego, they
must deal with their own perspectives, which will color how they see their own
value in a community. Some may have an inflated sense of worth, others may
severely under-value themselves.

In case it's not clear, you can't trust your ego.

Option 4: Leave
===============

There is frankly no reason to be part of a community if you are not treated
like a respectable person. If you contribute time and effort and do not get
acknowledged, thanked, or noticed, or derive any sense of accomplishment, then
you are wasting your time and effort on that community. If you've made some
enemies within a community, the community likely has already decided that you're
not wanted -- especially if said enemy is a member of the in-club. Leaving is
the easiest option of the four, and sometimes the only way to escape a community
that encourages poor social habits.

One of the benefits of this approach is it allows you to see in real world terms
what your participation did. People will notice things have disappeared that you
once offered to the world free of expectation. In that sense, your participation
becomes similar to plumbing, electricity, or even the Internet itself: its
absence is noticed far more than its presence ever was.

If people say and do nothing differently because of your absence, they didn't
give a shit about you. Even if they act like they care, it's only to get you to
bring back what you took. It has nothing to do with you as a person, and they
will happily return to their shitty habits once they feel they've settled you
down or gotten whatever they wanted back. The only way to send a clear message
is to make a clean cut. Disappear everything you published having to do with
that community, and resume your other interests. Self-hosting is an important
thing to have here, since you have complete control over your online presence at
that point.

Sure, people may think it's a dick move, but who cares about the opinion of a
community of people who want your labor, but not you?

*YOUR* satisfaction matters more than anything else when it comes to
participation. Nobody's entitled to your presence or your work.

- - -

I chose #4 because I'm done dealing with:

* hypocritical community leadership;
* intentionally over-complicated bureaucracy to disincentivize *using* the
  community structure;
* codes of conduct that care way too much about genitals, diversity, and
  pushing their vision onto other projects instead of treating people fairly;
* libre software communities that want your labor (for free!) but not your
  friendship or input;
* software distros that are designed to boost a select few members, often to
  help them become a famous personality or find a high-paying job (at the
  expense of all contributors who aren't benefiting from this practice);
* software distros that claim to care about a choice but then make plans to
  eradicate said choice;
* dishonest software developers who claim to not have an agenda and later force
  others to change to suit their desires by modifying their software or
  convincing other projects to depend on them;
* dishonest developers who, after lying about their motivations, claim that any
  social or philosophical discussion is off-topic, in a project whose goal is to
  displace (or subsume) other software. (A distinctly social goal!);
* dishonest software developers who are paid by the community and then claim
  to not be motivated or influenced by money;
* developers who intentionally deprecate an older project to push their newer,
  less reliable one
* developers who rip off the design of another program and implement it in
  another environment, then act as if they deserve any credit for the design;
* developers who intentionally name their software with a generic term or
  something extremely close to another thing in similar or related namespaces;
* software distros that claim to not have any conflict of interest (such as an
  employer influencing a technical decision) but later are revealed to;
* software distros that allow a few developers to run roughshod over the
  rest of the community;
* companies that have pernicious Terms, antagonistic design, and zero
  accountability for their code;
* websites that think they are software;
* companies who are not held accountable for mishandling the data that they
  hoard;
* hardware manufacturers obscuring technical faults with restrictive licensing
  of firmware or other microcode, destroying trust in the hardware.

Why bother? Why contribute to such a broken environment? You can't fix human
nature, and human nature is the problem. As long as there is incentive to
inflict suffering on others, humanity will never socially advance beyond the
petty tribalism and exploitation that it still clings onto today.

Now, some might want to say that I am contributing to the decay of the community
by not contributing to libre software anymore. My contributions for the past 15
years include bug reporting, triage, bug solving, forum/IRC support, package
maintenance, distro collaboration, pull requests, documentation writing, wiki
editing, upstreaming patches, and a brief stint in leadership that I was poorly
prepared for. These activities have made zero positive social impact on my life,
so I don't feel particularly obligated to pay attention to a guilt-trip like
that.

I want nothing to do with such a sick world anymore. Nobody is entitled to my
labor, and the fruits thereof, except me. I'm done working for free, giving the
results away, and being treated like shit afterwards.

To express it in code:

    while (benefit - cost > 0) {
        contribute(); // influences cost, benefit, and stress
        if (stress > 0) {
            cost += stress;
            benefit--;
            stress = 0;
        }
    }
    exit(EXIT_FAILURE);

Sincerely,

-zlg


REFERENCES
==========

[1]: A living wage, none of this Formidable bullshit[2] that pays $20/hr with no
     benefits and is considered self-employment, so you pay maximum taxes. It
     works out to less than $10/hr after taxes and fees. Programs like these are
     a bid to lower software development labor costs and create a new generation
     of code monkeys who do valuable work, but get paid peanuts. All because
     they believe in something (libre software). It turns out that it's easy to
     manipulate someone if you know their values. Yes I read the post; it's
     clearly a PR article.

     Microsoft's GitHub is trying the same shit with Sponsors [3], so be careful
     to not fall for this scheme. The only beneficiary from these schemes are
     businesses. They can get tax write-offs from spending this money, while
     you're left paying all the taxes on what they "paid" you. Also note their
     promise to match donations and have no fees in the first year. They're
     attempting to be a loss-leader to beat people to this "new" market of
     crowdfunding software development. While their post does disclose that
     they plan to adopt "nominal fees" after the first year, ZERO details for
     this scheme have been shared and they are banking on hype alone. I'll be
     laughing next year when developers discover it's just as bad as, or worse
     than Patreon.

     We are in an age of middlemen rent seekers who want the public to depend on
     their platform(s) so they have dependable cashflow. Meanwhile, "content
     creators", developers, artists, and other creative people are being taken
     advantage of by business... like they always have been. Recognize this as
     a cheap power grab and always favor paying a creative person with as few
     middlemen between the two of you as possible.

[2]: https://formidable.com/blog/2019/sauce-program/

[3]: https://github.com/sponsors