<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>TeMPOraL</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s not capitalism either, because open source developers don&amp;#x27;t sell code, or write code under pressure of earning a living. They just write it and give it away.&lt;p&gt;Not sure what the right word is, but textbook-definition communism fits - open-source code isn&amp;#x27;t really owned in practical sense.</text><parent_chain><item><author>criloz2</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t see how open source is a communist model, nobody is coerced to publish their code, they do because they want to, even several companies are making some of their source code public for improving the trust that their client has in their product and increase their sales.</text></item><item><author>sillysaurus3</author><text>This is one argument against capitalism as a whole, and it&amp;#x27;s worth taking seriously. Capitalism is still the best tool we have, but it&amp;#x27;s not without downsides.&lt;p&gt;Example: open source is the communist model, and it works very well. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. No one owns anything, and you&amp;#x27;re free to fork or vote with your feet.&lt;p&gt;Ditto for illegal drug markets. If you&amp;#x27;re unhappy as a merchant, you have a number of options. No one owns you. You can switch to a different market, or start your own (if you&amp;#x27;re suicidally ambitious).&lt;p&gt;The interesting part is that the drug markets end up combining the best of both capitalism and communism in that sense.&lt;p&gt;But only in that sense. Obviously, unregulated drugs are risky. Yet even without regulations, it&amp;#x27;s remarkable how rare it is to hear about unhappy customers.</text></item><item><author>TeMPOraL</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s because the incentives of your drug dealer are more aligned with your well-being than the incentives of your bank or government. That&amp;#x27;s not always the case, but when it happens, even the worst criminal can be a better friend than a legit operation, for which the only reason not to screw you over completely is the potential legal fuss.</text></item><item><author>inDigiNeous</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s kinda funny to notice that in the article the writer is describing the stereotype of a drug dealer being untrusted, yet based on my experience and what I&amp;#x27;ve seen, I would rather trust an online drug dealer than for example my bank or the people running our government. That&amp;#x27;s kinda fucked up right there, won&amp;#x27;t you say ?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything</title><url>http://nautil.us/issue/55/trust/how-darknet-sellers-build-trust</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>rosser</author><text>&amp;quot;Communism&amp;quot; — the leading capital due to its being the first word in the sentence — is an &lt;i&gt;economic model&lt;/i&gt;. &amp;quot;Communism&amp;quot;, the Soviet-style phenomenon is not &amp;quot;communism&amp;quot;, either in principle, or in practice.&lt;p&gt;Yet we insist on conflating them, and argue against the one whenever the other is mentioned, as if it&amp;#x27;s synonymous with both.</text><parent_chain><item><author>criloz2</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t see how open source is a communist model, nobody is coerced to publish their code, they do because they want to, even several companies are making some of their source code public for improving the trust that their client has in their product and increase their sales.</text></item><item><author>sillysaurus3</author><text>This is one argument against capitalism as a whole, and it&amp;#x27;s worth taking seriously. Capitalism is still the best tool we have, but it&amp;#x27;s not without downsides.&lt;p&gt;Example: open source is the communist model, and it works very well. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. No one owns anything, and you&amp;#x27;re free to fork or vote with your feet.&lt;p&gt;Ditto for illegal drug markets. If you&amp;#x27;re unhappy as a merchant, you have a number of options. No one owns you. You can switch to a different market, or start your own (if you&amp;#x27;re suicidally ambitious).&lt;p&gt;The interesting part is that the drug markets end up combining the best of both capitalism and communism in that sense.&lt;p&gt;But only in that sense. Obviously, unregulated drugs are risky. Yet even without regulations, it&amp;#x27;s remarkable how rare it is to hear about unhappy customers.</text></item><item><author>TeMPOraL</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s because the incentives of your drug dealer are more aligned with your well-being than the incentives of your bank or government. That&amp;#x27;s not always the case, but when it happens, even the worst criminal can be a better friend than a legit operation, for which the only reason not to screw you over completely is the potential legal fuss.</text></item><item><author>inDigiNeous</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s kinda funny to notice that in the article the writer is describing the stereotype of a drug dealer being untrusted, yet based on my experience and what I&amp;#x27;ve seen, I would rather trust an online drug dealer than for example my bank or the people running our government. That&amp;#x27;s kinda fucked up right there, won&amp;#x27;t you say ?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything</title><url>http://nautil.us/issue/55/trust/how-darknet-sellers-build-trust</url></story>