91–100 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't advance the cause of software freedom. Should we all just shut up about anything that doesn't advance the cause of the organizations that we're part of?
FSF board members should.
> Most importantly, I believe we must find a way to stand firm for software freedom while also making a safe environment for victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, gaslighting, and other deplorable actions. I understand and I fully stand by his belief that software freedom does not mean egalitarian and morally righteous principles have to be undermined in order to progress. However, it is not the FSF's job to make…
Which is what this is generally all about: politeness. Not making people uncomfortable. Making them feel welcome.
> The question is whether an organization should have a designated leader who is on a sustained, public campaign advocating about an unrelated issue that many consider controversial. I don't understand this. Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job? As long as RMS wasn't actively using his power/influence as head of the FSF to advance his odd-ball views I really…
They can always share opinions anonymously. I don't know you who are: for all I know you could be the president of the US.
If you're seen as a figurehead of a company/organisation/movement etc, it makes sense to limit what opinions you say under your real name. As the article says, it can be a distraction from the organisation's purpose. Musk is a good example: I work in a company that has links to SpaceX, and when Musk dives off the deep end on Twitter every conversation about SpaceX eventually leads to a discussion about him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that's what I disagree with. And its not about board members only - rank and file employees regularly get fired for expressing opinions not endorsed by their orgs.
What does that have to do with RMS?
My point is eloquently summarized by someone else here:
"I guess free speech still exists in non-controversial matters, and for people who don't have to worry about employment."
> However, we do not need to follow leadership from those whose views we fundamentally disagree. I hesitate to bring up Trump in this context but I know many wish they didn't have to follow a man who casually joked about sexual assault. Yet Americans do have to follow Trump on matters of law related to his office as President, like it or not. > [...] organizations need not and should not elevate spokespeople and lead…
The Trump administration has, similarly, repeatedly fired public relations representatives when it became dissatisfied with their performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of how his stated views changed over time, the article is more about how such outside-the-mainstream views end up being a significant distraction from the already (unrelated) outside-the-mainstream views of the FSF. Even were he to turn out to be an incredible coder and lover of open source, I also wouldn't expect the FSF to hire David Duke as a spokesman because the combination of two unrelated advocacy p…
I think we need to keep in mind that RMS was posting this stuff very publicly all the while FSF was a runaway success. If RMS were being nominated to lead the FSF today, sure it might be appropriate to point out that he seems like a wack-job. However, as it stands we've lost one of the most impactful thought leaders of the past several decades over some mudslinging and theoretical "distraction".
He hasn't been silenced. He still has internet access and the many publishing platforms that affords him.
He's been dissociated from a role in an organization.
If his ideas so clearly stand on their own, then he should have no problems. What he will not be doing anymore is acting as a direct representative of the organization.
I think I’m more on the side of thinking leaders should be moral people and not think that pedophilia is defensible. I do believe people in power should be held accountable.
I think “cancel culture” is the wrong term to use, I think is accountable culture. If you think it’s okay to demean woman and defend someone exploiting young girls because his sex trafficker friend gives his institution lots of money, then I think you’re a bad person.
Free speech doesn’t mean you’re free from consequences.
> It really doesn't matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from .... I can understand his position, but this is part of the picture of a core problem in society today. Its NOT that leaders aren't allowed to speak about controversial issues - its that they aren't allowed to advocate ONE side…
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is understood as the principle of freedom of speech. We don't get that if you risk losing your job if you don't share every view of the majority. The principle should be well understood by an organization that stands for, above all, these sorts of freedoms. There is no freedom of speech left if you're only able to say what every…
What I do see, is others utilizing their right to (dis)associate with whomever they want.
Freedom of speech has never included any notion of "Freedom from societal repercussions".