151–160 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing actually prevents those corporations from using AGPLv3. The are only afraid that they can't create a walled garden with it. So users are protected from that, as designed.
Users are protected from interacting with the big corporations they exclusively interact with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and we choose to hold him accountable Is this your euphemism for "cancelling"? Go to the court if there's a crime.
Canceling is not about criminal behavior. It's about the gap between the regulation of behavior the law puts on us all and individual's decisions about what they will tolerate. Freedom of association lives right next to freedom of speech in the Constitution. His right to say what he wants does not impinge on my right to think that every time he opens his mouth these days he sets the movement back. ... Besides, nobody…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canceling is not about criminal behavior. It's about the gap between the regulation of behavior the law puts on us all and individual's decisions about what they will tolerate. Freedom of association lives right next to freedom of speech in the Constitution. His right to say what he wants does not impinge on my right to think that every time he opens his mouth these days he sets the movement back. ... Besides, nobody…
Cancelling is punishing of an individual by the crowd without a fair process. It should not exist. Choosing your software is not cancelling.
It's the same thing: personal choice intended to influence the shape of the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users are protected from interacting with the big corporations they exclusively interact with?
This particular way of creating a walled garden, which relies on free work of free software volunteers, doesn't work thanks to AGPLv3. Whenever this license is involved, it works.
If the goal was to change behavior... Behavior refuses to change.
I am concerned about the fact that we don't know the identities of any of the authors of this web page. There are people who find it very enjoyable to destroy someone's reputation (for basically the same reason that there are people for whom murder is such a turn-on that they cannot stop themselves from doing it till they get caught). Also, there might be ways to profit or personally benefit from a campaign like this…
The anonymous authors of this website have instructed people on other websites to come here and downvote any and all comments that speak in favor of RMS: https://mastodon.social/@report_press/113305688857205037 This is telling. They don't want discourse, they want to silence and bully everyone who disagrees with them so only they are allowed to speak. All they have is anonymous accusations with zero proof, an off-con…
Not anonymous anymore. And who they are is not too surprising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read most of the report and it's got a lot more than "last time". Speaking as someone who has done a lot of my own research on Stallman's bullshit, the depth of this report is astonishing. The allegations it makes regarding the conduct of the rest of the FSF is particularly alarming. I think you should at least skim it before you comment.
Drew please. What is your ultimate purpose in creating this smear piece?
There are screenshots from Drews live streams which show his browser history/bookmarks which show links to 4ch board for cartoon drawings of lewd/nude children which make this all the more sickening. No wonder Drew loves his "research" so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This particular way of creating a walled garden, which relies on free work of free software volunteers, doesn't work thanks to AGPLv3. Whenever this license is involved, it works.
It unfortunately does nothing to prevent creation of a walled garden via creation of proprietary content in a proprietary network fabric on proprietary infrastructure, which... Seems to be all you need, given the popularity of Facebook, X, YouTube, and the multiple cloud service providers supporting something like (depending on who's crunching the numbers) 74% of enterprises. If the goal was to change behavior... Beh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> refer to them using words whose meanings (as you understand them) cover those participants' stated gender identities If I were trans, that portion of the guideline would be enough to nope me out of participating in GNU projects. The "as you understand them" parenthetical gives cover for transphobes to intentionally misgender trans people, since they can hide behind saying that they feel it's only appropriate to use…
I'm trans and the GNU Communication Guidelines feel way more empathetic to me than CoC-like documents. > gives cover for transphobes to intentionally misgender trans people It also gives cover to people who prefer to always use gender neutral pronouns. If a transphobe is acting on their views on gender to bully people, I'd rather deal with them on a case-by-base basis, while being empathetic to everyone else who migh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm trans and the GNU Communication Guidelines feel way more empathetic to me than CoC-like documents. > gives cover for transphobes to intentionally misgender trans people It also gives cover to people who prefer to always use gender neutral pronouns. If a transphobe is acting on their views on gender to bully people, I'd rather deal with them on a case-by-base basis, while being empathetic to everyone else who migh…
ITYM "meant _no_ harm"