• downpunxx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Ah, and in there lies the rub, Governments are not in the business of developing new technology anymore, it’s been farmed out to the private sector, and the private sector wants to make a profit off of their inventions, so the Government must use private sector technology whether it’s physical computer hardware, to operating systems, to web hosting, even open source has to run on something, and private sector tech is always advancing which means Governments must use advancing private sector tech. The dream of detaching completely from private sector tech and not be “beholden to private interests” only works if there are no private interests and all tech development is performed by the state, because private sector tech, the good goods, the new shit, the stuff everybody wants to use will by it’s very nature be beholden to private interests.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t think reducing the conversation to a binary state really furthers the conversation in a productive way.

      The government already does deploy tech services with varying levels of cooperation with the private sector. “MyCRA” login is a prime example: you don’t NEED to login with credentials governed by the CRA, you can optionally authenticate with your bank which may be easier.

      If they ONLY relied on banking authentication, that creates an obvious surrender of a critical piece of the service infrastructure.

      “Nationalizing” services in part or entirely is a discussion that can be had without reducing it to “but Intel makes the CPUs and they have private sector interests so unless the government makes chips then it’s a doomed endeavour”