"Local first" is neither equivalent to privacy protection or public software good. Many businesses sell local-first software that still contains remote backdoors[0] you cannot control. And it most certainly doesn't ensure "public software good" when there is zero obligation to improve the upstream or empower users to seek alternatives.

I would sooner trust a GPL-licensed remote software program than store a kilobyte of personally identifying information in a proprietary "local first" system.

[0] https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surve...

I think you mean antithetical to corrupted conflict-of-interest capitalism.

Conflict-of-interest transactions have hidden or coercive impact, lined up in favor of the party with stronger leverage. Examples include un-asked and unwanted surveillance of data or activity, coercive use of information, vendor lock in, unwanted artificial product/service dependencies, insertion of unwanted interaction (ads), ...

None of that is inherent to capitalism. They clearly violate the spirit of capitalism, free trade, etc.

It is providers taking advantage of customer lack of leverage and knowledge to extract value that does not reflect the plain transaction actually desired by customers. Done legally but often with surreptitious disclosure or dark pattern permissions, border line legally where customers would incur great costs identify and protest, or plain old illegally but in a hidden manner with a massive legal budget to provide a moat against accountability.

It is tragic that the current generation of Silicon Valley and VC firms have embraced conflict of interest based business models. Due to the amounts of money that scaling "small" conflicts can make. Despite the great damage that we now know scaling up "small" conflicts can do.

That was not always the case.

It might be antithetical to rent seeking at best, but capitalism?