The-Source.com

Excellent and insightful article by Rob Weir.

Lie. Lie Big. And Stick to It.

One of the things Mr. Weir points out is that through a simple Google search, it’s easy to see how a troop of zombie “tech journalists”, bloggers, and astroturfers simply parrot Microsoft talking points – right down to the exact phrasing.

(The audacity of Microsoft complaining that someone else is “restricting choice” is nearly as amusing as when Microsoft complains of “Google’s monopoly status”. )

Freedom and Choice

I’ve made this point before on this blog – and am certainly not the first to do so, but “Freedom” and “Choice” are not the same thing.

There are a host of reasons why it is the “Free Software Foundation” and not the “Foundation for Software Choice” (the latter of which would be a fantastic name for yet another Microsoft front group, don’t you think?), and Mr. Weir presents a nice thought experiment:

So going back to the  boxes again.  Now imagine one has $10 in it, and the other has a note in it that requires that you pay me $10.  You can see the contents of each box.  Which one do you choose?  It should be obvious, you pick the one with $10 in it.

But what if I say you are not limited to picking only one box.  You can pick either box, or both boxes if you wish.  You have absolute freedom to choose A, B or A+B.  What do you do?  Of course, you still pick the box with $10 in it.

But doesn’t that eliminate choice?  Yes, of course it did.  But the value of choice was only derived from the value of the underlying outcomes.  By choosing, I’ve derived the full value of having a choice.  Since if one choice is clearly more favorable than others (it “dominates” the others) then the alternatives should be discarded.

Fighting Sound Bites and Fallacies

Not only is the full thought experiment quite nice, but Mr. Weir makes a very perceptive insight when discussing the integrity and composition of Microsoft’s “ODF restricts choice” argument:

This argument is quite effective, since it is plausible at first glance, and takes more than 15 seconds to refute.  But the argument in the end fails by taking a very superficial view of “choice”, relying merely on the positive allure of its name, essentially using it as a talisman.

There is an implied component here that is absolutely crucial to understanding Microsoft’s argument on ODF – Microsoft is intentionally trying to deceive.

(Shocking implication: the ODF/OOXML arena may not be the only place this is happening.)

When Microsoft attempts to construct a narrative like “ODF restricts choice” or “Shared Source is Open Source” or “Microsoft has embraced Open Source”, it’s not because there is necessarily any truth in the story.

“Truth” isn’t of value to Microsoft because Microsoft isn’t in the truth-telling business. And while I think most people are smart enough to recognize that companies in general are going to try to “spin” things in a favorable way, it’s always amusing to see journalists, fanboys, and astroturfers present spin as honest opinion.

What’s even sadder is when people actually believe the spin.