I’ll write one. The talk argues that employment contract is invalid due to inalienable rights. Inalienable means can’t be given up even with consent. Workers’ inalienable rights are rooted in their joint de facto responsibility in the firm for using up inputs to produce outputs. By the norm that legal and de facto responsibility should match, workers should get the corresponding legal responsibility, but in employment, workers as employees get 0% while employer gets 100% of results of production

What you are looking for is some sort of variant of quadratic funding. It is a mechanism that is specifically designed to overcome the free rider problem that public goods like FOSS suffer from. It solves it by matching private contributions to these public goods using a special formula that aligns incentives, so that everyone that knowingly benefits from a public good has an economic incentive to contribute to it because more contributors leads to a higher level of matching

I disagree that the 2 options are the only ones available. We could have a funding system with aspects of quadratic funding and artistic freedom vouchers, which allows the organizations developing the software to remain private organizations. Quadratic funding is basically a public matching fund for contributions to public goods such as OSS with a special matching formula that matches small contributions from many sponsors at a higher rater than more concentrated ones

The author in another article does recommend GrapheneOS.

https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/android.html

“The best option for privacy and security on Android is to get a Pixel 4 or greater and flash GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS does not contain any tracking unlike the stock OS on most devices. Additionally, GrapheneOS retains the baseline security model whilst improving upon it with substantial hardening enhancements … includ[ing] a hardened memory allocator, hardened C library, [and] hardened kernel”

Workers should be able to realize the value of what they produce in basically getting the pure profits of the firm.

Value doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. Property rights to positive and negative fruits of labor do. When you consider what taking on the risk and initiative means in this context, it is really taking on the negative fruits of labor (liabilities for used-up inputs). Workers should get both the positive and negative fruits of their labor, and take the initiative

That is strange to me as well. He normally talks about abolishing the employer-employee relationship in favor of democratic worker membership in the firm. I speculate that it has to do with trying to explain it to a more general audience

ESOPs in the US by default work something like that. The author is definitely not advocating that. He has a similar critique of American ESOPs in this work: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/102452

The author advocates 1 worker 1 vote (or equal voice if we are talking more sophisticated voting systems like quadratic voting). He is definitely speaking from a more democratic tradition

It wasn’t even the case in the 50s. Giving workers what they are responsible for producing would require changing the structure of property relations. An employer cannot do it without abolishing their own role