>>levlaz+(OP)
By this logic, X/Facebook/Instagram/etc. are not communities, but "ecosystems"... after all, everyone controls their own posts. You can't force someone to post something you want. "Don't like what <celebrity> is posting? Follow one of the countless alternatives. Or start your own account! Here, you can even use this automated bot as a base for making the posts you'd like." Meanwhile, "whatever word you choose, you'd do well to remember that <platform> is first and foremost a method of collaboration between elites. Not an entitlement program for petulant users to get free stuff or a seat at the table where decisions are made."

But these social media platforms are clearly communities... they even have "community guidelines". Not to mention Github https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-c...

>>Mathne+CK1
> But these social media platforms are clearly communities... they even have "community guidelines". Not to mention Github https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-c...

Well, if they have community guidelines… this definitely makes them a community, lol.

>>wiseow+0R1
...probably the same way a Code of Ethics handbook makes you ethical. (https://www.justice.gov/archive/enron/exhibit/02-06/BBC-0001...)

>>Almond+OO1
The requirement of Free Software is to respect the four essential freedoms [1], one of which explicitly talks about 'community'. And the essay that lays out the four freedoms begins with this very line :

> “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community.

(my italics)

This is why, while 'FOSS' can sometimes serve as a useful, rough grouping, the need to distinguish Free Software from Open Source is an important one. The two are not the same. The author of the submitted piece, of course, talks only about Open Source.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms