How did you get information about country of origin? I wasn’t able to find it.
I don’t see the connection here. Authors of the letter didn’t create those laws and they don’t advocate for any legal action regarding RMS.
I feel like putting every form of protest against some ideas under umbrella of “cancel culture” as a way of dismissing it, is the bigger problem here. We’re moving the problem from its merits, so we don’t think how reasonable the complains are. Instead we put a target on mere fact of complains happening. It’s funny how this does the very thing it claims to be against.
In a more ideal world, that we be the perfect solution, but it’s not really a new topic. RMS and FSF had a lot of time to address the complains, but never did. So I can see how lack of willingness to do anything on their part would translate to lack of good faith in them.
I’m very much for challenge of ideas – that’s why I post in this thread. I just think that this particular video didn’t bring any value to the topic. Pretty much every point it made was fallacious in some way and watching and responding to it takes time. There’s not much challenge in arguments that can be debunked without much effort.
In contrast, I find your input on the matter much more beneficial.
That’s a mistake, there is no official attribution. I made some educated guesses given the ratio of involvement, the list of pre-loaded signees on the first commit, the use of the word “we” and so on but it was very late and we’ll call it a brain fart. Thank you, i’ll make the edit.
I began with, “Whatsmore is the gravity” because even in an alleged environment where those accusations have higher stakes someone would be expected to be more mindful of the gravity of consequence yet the conclusions were still embellished. Creation or invocation of a consequence isn’t necessary for being mindful of the general stakes.
The feeling’s mutual, very glad to share a space with you.
Anyone thoughtless enough to comment in a way other than platitudes on a socially radioactive topic such as the sexual abuse/exploitation of minors doesn’t belong in a position of leadership. This is doubly the case when such a topic has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the organization.
RMS is a kook. His ideas and worldview, as presented on his own website, are abrasive and divisive covering such a broad spectrum that he has created more triggers than Glock. He gives the appearance of being beside himself.
However, when I sold computers in the 1980’s, the market leading spreadsheet Lotus 1-2-3 was $495.00. There was a small company called Mosaic selling a spreadsheet known as “Twin.” Twin was cheap (IIRC ~$85), better graphics than Lotus 1-2-3, solid, and not copy protected. Lotus sued the pants off Mosaic and tied them up in the courts for like 7 years until Mosaic had to fold. RMS was the guy protesting the unconscionable actions of Lotus (in front of their office) and protecting the rights of independent software developers. Reports abound that at FSF RMS would single-handedly negotiate settlements between parties. RMS was the brains, gonads, hands, and feet behind GNU GPL.
The bottom line for me is that RMS and I have very little in common as far as worldview. As a matter of fact, he thinks I’m the kook. But the fact remains you’ll have a hard task convincing me that any of us would be on this platform today without RMS.
One of the things I’ve had time to think about in regards to the Free Software Foundation appointing Stallman onto the board is that the FSF specifically, as said on their Twitter, didn’t tell anybody not even sponsors that it was going to happen until it was announced at LibrePlanet.
I did notice that Red Hat was the money behind LibrePlanet and the EFF and openSUSE— which I am aware isn’t SUSE— were among named exhibitors. I also noticed that Red Hat, SUSE, and the EFF weren’t too happy about the decision to place Stallman on the board.
I’m left to wonder if the FSF knew there would be fallout and purposely chose to be clandestine as to not alienate their benefactor and exhibitors. If the FSF knew there was gonna be fallout to this extent, why even do it?
for me i walmost want to redo my dues as a member but to shove this cancel culture out!!.
but they the FSF are stuck in a bad mindset. i cant get behind really. How is Coppa not hurrting the the internet or the Software aspect. last i check the new coppa version will go after software too
What I’m more curious about is; how did RMS get around to using video chat with all his self-imposed rules about not using anything that is not free-softwaaarrrrree?
FSF president Geoffrey Knauth announced, “I commit myself to resign as an FSF officer, director, and voting member as soon as there is a clear path for new leadership assuring continuity of the FSF’s mission and compliance with fiduciary requirements.”
There’s also been board resignations of the FSF Executive Director, Deputy Director and Chief Technology Officer parting on good terms.
The board’s added a new member voted in by the union staff to represent them as part of a larger plan to improve governance.
They’re also planning an ethics statement which MAY be a counter to the open letters and not just a token display.
Needed to put this reply off as it leads into a good topic.
My quote is being used out of context, it was following this statement…
I never made or advocated for an umbrella summary. I didn’t suggest all the complaints should be dismissed as Cancel Culture and I didn’t fail to elevate the merit to a lot of the evidence along with a solution that could include them. I’m sure what you were trying to get at was more nuanced and tackling what’s usually at issue though I didn’t take those positions.
If i’d pose a test to myself (pointed at no one in particular)…
Are the threats, conclusions, calls for mass action and some of the content eligible for the term “Cancel Culture”?
Nadine Strossen former president of the ACLU, founder of Feminists for Free Expression (FFE) among a long list of incredible achievements weighed in on Stallman after the same issues were raised 2 years ago.
It was part of an article by Hannah Wolfman-Jones where she also makes several cases for Stallman including digging into the acts of impropriety.
There’s also this piece, one of the first decent defenses i’ve found that does an itemized run down of debunking claims. How many are correct? I don’t know. That’s just one factor in the proportional response problem of Internet mobs acting as juries.
Maybe that’s the battleline for sense making before there can be a discussion over what a community that uses acts of impropriety to punish acts of impropriety looks like.
Thank you, i’ll make the edit.
