Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Stallman Report

stallman-report.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 208 posts

Re: The Stallman Report

#111

Post by bringen »

bringen wrote: post #109

Interesting to note that the A record for stallman-report.org was, up until a few days ago, the same as the A record for drewdevault.com: https://i.ibb.co/RNBGcTJ/securitytrails-drewdevault.png https://i.ibb.co/NYtTQnh/securitytrails-stallmanreport.png So even though the report is anonymous, we can be almost certain that Drew is behind it, as he was for the previous hit piece.

Furthermore, while that same IP address (46.23.81.157) no longer hosts the stallman-report.org website, responding with "404 Site not found" if requested, it still has a certificate for stallman-report.org, which can be observed if a matching SNI record is sent during the TLS handshake:

https://i.ibb.co/S0fPvW3/ddv-sr-cert.png

Re: The Stallman Report

#112

Post by seba_dos1 »

I don't think rms should have returned to the FSF board and I do believe his continued presence there does more harm than good, not because of hit pieces against him damaging his reputation, but because of his own behavior. I'm also aware that some of the vocal voices defending Stallman are nothing but channeled bigotry of their owners (oftentimes much worse than anything Stallman has ever been alleged of) and all I can say about those is how disgusted I am by them.

That said, I read this page in its entirety and I can't help but notice how manipulative this report is. I can't tell whether this was intentional malice, a sign of subconscious bias or maybe just careless use of words, but constructs like "we can conclude that [statement that doesn't follow from what was said before]", placing whole paragraphs that are hard to disagree with but aren't related to quoted positions and are clearly meant to inflict negative emotional response to induce implicit misrepresentation (such as the one that starts with "The actors involved in pornographic films...") and stating things like "absolves the perpetrator of wrongdoing" or "consistently defends [something]" despite of that not being present in the quoted source material nor able to be inferred from it without making possibly wrong assumptions on intentions behind the words written make me doubt whether this was authored in good faith, even when the report makes some points about Stallman that I ultimately agree with.

Re: The Stallman Report

#113

Post by fsflover »

shadowgovt wrote: post #108
holmesworcester wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read this, I don't think there is any accusation of criminal behavior in this report. The accusation is that he made people uncomfortable, didn't do enough to change that when it was raised, and defended criminal behavior by insisting on distinctions that the authors of the report consider immaterial or harmful. I worked for RMS/FSF briefly and I think there is something about his radical refusal to compromise…

And this is kind of key to the whole argument. It's not just about his behavior and questionable views on consent and age (though those are the disqualifying issues). Beyond that... The movement is stagnating because its leadership can't compromise and the computing world is moving beyond the era of personal computers and one-org mainframes that Stallman concocted the Four Freedoms in. How do the Four Freedoms apply…

> The movement is stagnating because its leadership can't compromise

If you want compromises, join the so-called "open-source" community, full of proprietary blobs. Thanks to Stallman, we have an example of true freedom and a compass showing where to move for it.

Re: The Stallman Report

#114

Post by fsflover »

madahin wrote: post #104
o999 wrote: post #65

Puberty was considered the adulthood age for mellinia, that is suitable for marriage (and is still considered so in several places). Why is this a very controversial topic?

Because children can begin puberty super early [1] Because puberty begin on average at 10-12 [2] The fact that some countries/cultures are okay with child marriage doesn't mean that it's not absolutely disgusting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

It doesn't mean that discussing it must result in a cancellation of a person though.

Re: The Stallman Report

#116

Post by fsflover »

shadowgovt wrote: post #84
fsflover wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whatever you think of the accuracy of the accusations against him, the general perception of him is clearly negative Which is why we should support him even more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22299156

What is the goal: to promote free software or to stand for people's rights to have sexual relations with fourteen-year-olds? If the former, having the movement spearheaded by someone who has pretty controversial views on the latter isn't really doing the movement any good. If FSF clings stubbornly to a thought-leader who people can't take seriously, they're canceling themselves. I've seen the accusation leveraged in…

> or to stand for people's rights to have sexual relations with fourteen-year-olds?

Who are you talking about? This is completely misleading and not what Stallman was saying.

Re: The Stallman Report

#117

Post by shadowgovt »

fsflover wrote: post #113
shadowgovt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is kind of key to the whole argument. It's not just about his behavior and questionable views on consent and age (though those are the disqualifying issues). Beyond that... The movement is stagnating because its leadership can't compromise and the computing world is moving beyond the era of personal computers and one-org mainframes that Stallman concocted the Four Freedoms in. How do the Four Freedoms apply…

> The movement is stagnating because its leadership can't compromise If you want compromises, join the so-called "open-source" community, full of proprietary blobs. Thanks to Stallman, we have an example of true freedom and a compass showing where to move for it.

Copyleft is a compromise, and one of the most clever, honestly: ideally, the law should compel everyone to have the ability to change the devices they own and directly tell the authors of software that if they try to interfere with that, they can pound sand; their intellectual property rights don't extend to telling other people what to do.

It does not. But it does allow for the author to set the terms of the protection of their intellectual property.

That's the kind of compromise I'm talking about. And the FS movement hasn't figured out how to recapture that lightning in a bottle for the new Cloud era. Cloud is somewhat incompatible with the hardware-ownership-based philosophy of the Four Freedoms; something new and more fundamental is needed and the calcified, old movement can't seem to find it.

And they certainly don't seem to be trying, keeping the old leadership at the cost of turning away new members (with the implication that they value historical accomplishment more than new people). I've seen multiple people suggest that the right solution is to just abandon the FS movement qua the people running it and embrace new approaches; I think there's meat on those bones. It's a longer, harder fight if the old guard is left behind, but if they won't change they can't help.

Re: The Stallman Report

#118

Post by shadowgovt »

fsflover wrote: post #116
shadowgovt wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the goal: to promote free software or to stand for people's rights to have sexual relations with fourteen-year-olds? If the former, having the movement spearheaded by someone who has pretty controversial views on the latter isn't really doing the movement any good. If FSF clings stubbornly to a thought-leader who people can't take seriously, they're canceling themselves. I've seen the accusation leveraged in…

> or to stand for people's rights to have sexual relations with fourteen-year-olds? Who are you talking about? This is completely misleading and not what Stallman was saying.

""" The law [UK sexual offences bill] would also prohibit encouraging a (so-called) child to take part in sexual activity. I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.) It is unnatural for humans to abstain from sex past puberty, and while I wouldn't try to pressure anyone to participate, I certainly encourage everyone to do so. """

There are more charitable interpretations, but "Stallman wants to sleep with your teenage daughter" is the less-charitable one that political opponents can continue to levy against the entire movement because the FSF won't let him go.

Re: The Stallman Report

#119

Post by fsflover »

shadowgovt wrote: post #117
fsflover wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The movement is stagnating because its leadership can't compromise If you want compromises, join the so-called "open-source" community, full of proprietary blobs. Thanks to Stallman, we have an example of true freedom and a compass showing where to move for it.

Copyleft is a compromise, and one of the most clever, honestly: ideally, the law should compel everyone to have the ability to change the devices they own and directly tell the authors of software that if they try to interfere with that, they can pound sand; their intellectual property rights don't extend to telling other people what to do. It does not. But it does allow for the author to set the terms of the protect…

Why do you think AGPLv3 isn't good enough for that? I've never seen Google and Co using it, while small companies do.

Re: The Stallman Report

#120

Post by shadowgovt »

fsflover wrote: post #119
shadowgovt wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyleft is a compromise, and one of the most clever, honestly: ideally, the law should compel everyone to have the ability to change the devices they own and directly tell the authors of software that if they try to interfere with that, they can pound sand; their intellectual property rights don't extend to telling other people what to do. It does not. But it does allow for the author to set the terms of the protect…

Why do you think AGPLv3 isn't good enough for that? I've never seen Google and Co using it, while small companies do.

I think your statement answers itself.
Post reply on HN