Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of the consequence of its use.

Afer Elon Musk took over Twitter, there has been a lot of talk about how freedom of speech will be restored to the platform and such. The thing is that, those claiming that their freedom of speech was breached by being banned from Twitter forget a couple of things.

To begin with, freedom of speech doesn't mean one is free from the consequences of exercising it. People can answer you back, stop talking to you, or sue you for defamation. There are some other consequences you could face, both positive or negative, but there you can't escape from them.

Secondly, Twitter is private company. As such, it can ban of using its platform to spread speech that goes against the user agreement. When you open an account on any social media platform, everyone agrees to a set of rules to follow. If a user breach the user agreement, the platform can ban the user.

Who can't take away your freedom of speech is the government, and you can't be banned from used public forums. Yet, that doesn't mean other people can't use the same public forums to answer your speech, and you aren't immune from the consequences of your speech.

Yes, there are limits on what can be included on user agreements, or at least it should be clear set of rules on the matter. But, that doesn't mean consequences of using your freedom of speech shouldn't exist.

There are consequences of using your freedom of speech, and everyone should expect them to be.

Right to repair should taken for granted by users.

The fact the the right to repair our cars, electronics, home appliance, and other thing we own, isn't a given or something that has to be legislated about is ludicrous. The option of repairing thing that we own, like smartphones and microwaves, should always be an option.

Specially since being able to extend the life of devices helps our pockets, since most of the time repairing is cheaper that replacing, it also means less waste over time. Yet, most importantly we paid to be able to fully own our devices.

Companies shouldn't be able to artificially restrict our right to repair what we own, by raising artificial walls to prevent us to repair the devices we purchased from them. That we can't repair our devices artificially shortens the lifespan of our devices, and only benefits the companies by forcing us to buy a new one we want it or not.

Not only that, repairs should be able to be performed by third parties or even by the owners of the devices. Such repairs shouldn't be a risk to companies intellectual property, specially when a way for companies are given the ways to protect it and third parties are given the tools to make such repairs without risking the respective intellectual properties.

It is important to bring attention to the fact, the most third parties don't want, or need, to steal the intellectual property of the companies who own it. They just need the pertinent information to make the repairs asked for by their costumers. Even if they need access to software to test repairs, they just need the tools to verify the repair is done correctly, even if they see how the tools actually work.

If anything is needed, is to make sure that the framework needed to protect intellectual property while making repairs easily accessible for consumers the norm. Consumers should be able to repair their devices easily, and to choose who makes the repair.

At the end of the day, consumers should have the final choice to repair or renew the devices they own.

Time has proven Linux to be a great fit for my computing needs.

When I jump to using Ubuntu full time on my personal computer about a decade ago, I couldn't have imagined that I'd be using a Linux distro for my work as well.

While I moved to Linux Mint since 2019, I've been able to do my job since 2022 without much trouble using Remmina to connect to the remote desktop I need to connect to do my job. The best part is that it has given me the chance to work remotely, which has allowed me to have more flexibility on how I manage my time and be more productive.

My work place uses Windows computers for everything. So, when we had to start working remotely because of the pandemic, and bringing the desktop computer I used home with me, I was worried about losing some income because of it. Yet, with a few hours of research I found Remmina and it has worked like a charm ever since then. Actually, when I showed to the IT team at work, they were surprised how well it worked. Mainly because the software they had tried to use to connect to a remote Windows desktop using a Linux distro didn't actually work well enough to use on production machines.

The main problems were unstable connections, the keyboard didn't work well, and things that made the whole thing not really usable on a professional setting. Yet, Remmina works without any issue, and is easy to set up. The best thing, is that it works on Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Both are Linux distros that are easy for people that haven't used Linux before, and distros that the IT team can set up easily on most of the hardware we already have.

What's more, much of the software used on daily basis works directly on Ubuntu and Linux Mint, like Chrome or Spotify, making it easier to move to them. Even Microsoft Office can be accessed via Chrome or Firefox, and those who don't want to use it via a browser would be able to use the desktop version on the remote desktop.

At the end of the day, Remmina has proven to be a solid option when I need to connect to a remote Windows desktop effectively, without having to move away from Linux Mint. Personally I do prefer to avoid Windows as much as possible on my personal computers.

Time has proven that Linux can be a real option, specially for users cases like mine than don't require software that only runs on Windows and that there are distros out there that don't require the user to be computer savvy to use it.

Communism doesn't mean government owned means of production.

Every time someone says they are against communism, because the government will come to take away their things I get they don't really understand what communism is about.

Communism isn't about communal ownership of everything. Personal things can be privately owned, yet the means of production is what would fall in communal ownership. What this means, is that you could own your car but the factory that produced it would be own by the workers or community.

Government ownership of the means of production is not the what communism seeks, but that the workers become the owners of the means of production. At the end of the day, governments as we think of today are not needed in a communist society.

While communism was created as a reactionary response to capitalism, how it should be implemented has changed as time has gone by. Free trade is seen as desirable, while the means of production remain in the ownership of the workers.

Most importantly, communism doesn't mean everyone earns the same. Every person will earn according to their contribution to society, with the means of production being what is owned by the community.

Capitalist propaganda has done quite a good job misrepresenting what communism stands for.

Banking mobile apps have made managing my finances easier.

One of the things made a lot better for me by mobile apps, is my relationships with banks. Being able to manage my bank accounts, and my money, through my smartphone has made it a lot easier.

Being able to access by money from where I am at the moment, independent of the time, has made managing my finances a lot easier. Not only that, being able to send or receive money at a moments notice, without depending having to go to a physical branch of my bank, makes it a lot easier to go out with friends without being worried if I've got enough cash with me.

It also have made it a lot easier to reduce my need of cash, and to plan my expenses a lot better. Being able to have less cash with me, also helps me feel safer. Adding to that, that I don't need to have my debit card with me to withdraw money makes thing a lot more convenient for me.

While there still some things that could be done to make it a lot better, like allowing to withdraw a bit lower denominations via the app, I still pretty satisfied with the mobile apps of my banks as a whole. The have given me level of freedom that makes my life a lot better. The ability of being able to access my accounts independent of time and place also gives me a sense of more security, since I can react faster to situations as they happen rather to being dependent of being able to go a physical branch to manage my accounts.

As time goes on, I expect for the mobile apps of my banks to get better. Banks have getting better at giving me the options I need to manage my money so far, and I expect them to keep improving as time goes on.

Worrying anti labor unions stances.

It's borderline bizarre that a company like Apple, that paints itself as a progressive company, to have a hard stance against Apple store employees forming labor unions. Specially since the kind of person that tend to work at Apple Stores, tend to be people who would actually use the labor union as a body to actually negotiate in ways that benefit both the employees and the company.

That even Starbucks has an anti labor union stance on their coffee shops is worrying, since it also tries to paint itself as a fair company with their workers and their providers. The fact that they are trying so hard to impede their workers to form labor unions, could also cast shadows on how fair are their deals with coffee growers.

The common trend it the anti labor union stance of both companies, is that they view labor unions as perjudicial for everyone involved by default. The truth is that there are not, it comes down to how workers manage and how the company relates to the labor union. A well run union, and a company that is willing to build a good working relationship with it, can actually benefit the workers and the company. Labor unions actually make the relationship between the company and the workers a lot easier, since the company just needs to deal with the labor union itself rather than with each individual worker.

It can actually make the relationship between the employees and the company more balanced, making the company more answerable to employee needs and worries. Not only that, it can give a better platform to employees a bigger voice on how the company they work for is managed.

At the end of the day, the problem are not labor unions. The problem is how companies want to balance the power between them and their employees.

Educations systems are failing us.

One of the things made apparent by social media, is that not everyone receives the same quality of education. Our education systems are failing society at large, by not giving every member of society the same education.

Education is one of the elements that actually has a big impact on how society as a whole can advance, and build a better future for humanity as whole. Yet, it seems that if you don't have enough money, the education that have access to doesn't give the individual the tools needed to be able to adapt to the changing world or make the best of the opportunities presented by life.

This is specially evident when critical thinking comes into play, or there is a need to process new information. There is a large segment of people who aren't capable to deal with changes in well, alright refusing to make any change no matter how beneficial it is to them.

There are people whose education is not giving them the tools needed to be able to make the most, and benefit, from change by being able to adapt to it. Not to mention when having to face people who have different views, or experiences, and learn from them.

Lacking the ability to be able to do so, is generating a lot of us versus them situations that shouldn't even exist. It creates false dichotomies needlessly, making it far to difficult to reach solutions or compromises.

Sadly, there are cases where fixing the education systems can be done. Yet, what is impeding it is the lack of will to fix them. Our education systems need to change.