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

131–140 of 208 posts

Re: The Stallman Report

#131

Post by Managor »

drewdevault wrote: post #4
h2odragon wrote: post #3

Anything more to these allegations than there was last time? Or is this yet another chapter of someone's envy resorting to character assassination instead of finding contentment in their own work? If these people succeeded in their apparent goal of making RMS less popular, do they think the world will love them for it? Why aint they signing their name?

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?

Re: The Stallman Report

#132

Post by fsflover »

neptune22 wrote: post #8

This is really great work getting all of the evidence into one place. Really helpful, thanks. I really like the focus on the victims. I am a previous PhD student who worked under Marvin Minsky, and I do believe that there is no evidence that Minsky was present for any sexual misconduct, and some of the quotes about Minksy do not mention that there is no evidence of Minsky's sexual misconduct. I believe the quotes abo…

> This is really great work getting all of the evidence into one place.

It's not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41840891

Re: The Stallman Report

#133

Post by Akronymus »

gr4vityWall wrote: post #100
jcranmer wrote: post #87

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…

I've also seen attempts at using someones mistake with misgendering someone on accident be used to start what amounts to a witchhunt in various private communities. So I really don't like it when a CoC assumed maliciousness by default, which a lot of them are.

I am no longer part of most of those communities, for both related and unrelated reasons.

Re: The Stallman Report

#134

Post by seanw444 »

bringen wrote: post #128
bringen wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additional evidence has been uncovered linking Drew to this report, from Certificate Transparency data. A search for all subdomains of drewdevault.com reveals rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com, which had certificates issued on 29th September 2024, a few days before stallman-report.org was registered: https://crt.sh/?q=rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com Helpfully, the Internet Archive monitors the Certificate Transpare…

Drew popped up on this thread yesterday saying that he'd "read most of the report". We can now ascertain that this was a lie and an attempt to mislead, because it's clear from the accumulation of evidence that he authored it. While writing and editing this document he would have read every word, not just "most of" it. He is also keen to congratulate himself by not-so-humbly announcing that "the depth of this report i…

Alright, that's hilarious.

"Wow guys this is such a well-written piece. I wonder who could've put this together..."

I used to enjoy reading Drew's writings, but he's become such a complete goober lately (or I've just noticed it more).

I don't know what RMS's opinions have to do with running a free software organization, nor why they necessitate his cancelling, but apparently some people are incapable of compartmentalizing. I hate how common this has become.

Re: The Stallman Report

#135

Post by seanw444 »

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 the arbitrary age we picked, by which almost nobody is yet fully physically nor mentally developed, is definitely the correct one.

Non-sarcastically: Overton Window

Re: The Stallman Report

#136

Post by shadowgovt »

bringen wrote: post #128
bringen wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additional evidence has been uncovered linking Drew to this report, from Certificate Transparency data. A search for all subdomains of drewdevault.com reveals rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com, which had certificates issued on 29th September 2024, a few days before stallman-report.org was registered: https://crt.sh/?q=rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com Helpfully, the Internet Archive monitors the Certificate Transpare…

Drew popped up on this thread yesterday saying that he'd "read most of the report". We can now ascertain that this was a lie and an attempt to mislead, because it's clear from the accumulation of evidence that he authored it. While writing and editing this document he would have read every word, not just "most of" it. He is also keen to congratulate himself by not-so-humbly announcing that "the depth of this report i…

> Knowing that the author has engaged in such deceptive sockpuppetry casts significant doubt on the document itself

Does it though? If we're expected to separate the message from the messenger for Stallman but not for Drew, isn't that a double standard?

Who cares where the information came from if the information is accurate?

Re: The Stallman Report

#137

Post by shadowgovt »

seanw444 wrote: post #134
bringen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drew popped up on this thread yesterday saying that he'd "read most of the report". We can now ascertain that this was a lie and an attempt to mislead, because it's clear from the accumulation of evidence that he authored it. While writing and editing this document he would have read every word, not just "most of" it. He is also keen to congratulate himself by not-so-humbly announcing that "the depth of this report i…

Alright, that's hilarious. "Wow guys this is such a well-written piece. I wonder who could've put this together..." I used to enjoy reading Drew's writings, but he's become such a complete goober lately (or I've just noticed it more). I don't know what RMS's opinions have to do with running a free software organization, nor why they necessitate his cancelling, but apparently some people are incapable of compartmental…

> but apparently some people are incapable of compartmentalizing

You hit the nail on the head

> I hate how common this has become

That's to be expected when we widen the number of people participating in the technical community. Compartmentalization is an outlier behavior.

There was a time when some folks wouldn't have batted an eye that Reiser killed his wife if his filesystem was good. The median tech community member uses a different standard these days.

Re: The Stallman Report

#138

Post by fsflover »

shadowgovt wrote: post #118
fsflover wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. """ Ther…

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

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41848998

Re: The Stallman Report

#139

Post by fsflover »

shadowgovt wrote: post #81
fsflover wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does he have a right for his personal opinion in a free country?

Of course. But he's using that right to say very public things that are very objectionable, in a space he understands poorly, and everyone else can use their same rights to call him on his nonsense. And when one is an academic, one's word carries weight outside one's area of expertise. For all the good he did for science education, a common criticism of Carl Sagan is he was an astrophysicist (damn good one) who dabbl…

> and we choose to hold him accountable

Is this your euphemism for "cancelling"? Go to the court if there's a crime.

Re: The Stallman Report

#140

Post by vintnes »

drewdevault wrote: post #4
h2odragon wrote: post #3

Anything more to these allegations than there was last time? Or is this yet another chapter of someone's envy resorting to character assassination instead of finding contentment in their own work? If these people succeeded in their apparent goal of making RMS less popular, do they think the world will love them for it? Why aint they signing their name?

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.

Will you please explain why you attempted to conceal your involvement in this article? Furthermore, why did you do that so poorly? Domain blunder aside, I'm sure I'm not alone in having immediately recognized the thesis, specific political lexicon, and structural outline from your earlier blog post.

Do you see yourself as a viable leader of this community?

Post reply on HN