On 3/12/20 5:25 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > On 2020-03-11 14:33, a via libreplanet-discuss wrote: >> My post is about getting official comments from >> libreplanet and fsf. Of course anybody can >> reply, but I already know how people attempt >> to defend purism's behavior. >> >> >> On 3/11/20 8:48 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: >>> If I understand you correctly, you believe: Purism marketing talks about >>> software freedom and the goal of RYF 100% free hardware, but they don't >>> deliver to that level, and they minimize or hide the details. You worry >>> that people buy Purism products believing they are getting more complete >>> freedom than they actually receive. You doubt Purism's good faith, and >>> because you feel FSF should be skeptical rather than gracious about >>> these concerns, FSF is making a mistake by giving Purism a platform or >>> acknowledgment (at least without some explicit qualifiers from FSF about >>> these concerns). Is that right? >> >> Correct. >> >> >> >>> I agree with you that marketing claims should not mislead people about >>> the facts of products. Stating a goal of reaching some standard is not >>> the same as already being there, and the difference should be plain and >>> transparent. >> >> Correct. >> >>> I don't find your jump to speculating about bad faith at all warranted. >>> There's no evidence that FSF is corrupted in any way around this. And >>> there's inadequate (though perhaps non-zero) evidence that Purism has >>> any bad faith. >> >> https://trisquel.info/en/forum/librem13-fully-free-time >> >> educate yourself. >> >> About purism they claimed about their notebooks that >> there was a real possibility that intel would publish >> the software in question. Everybody in the field >> know, intel does not publish such >> pieces of source software. >> >> purism claimed reverse engineering was an option. The >> software in question is signed. Name a cryptographer who will >> agree, that breaking the cryptography is an option? >> >> As I said, one email to libreboot would have been enough. >> Also after people told purism that their claims were >> unfounded, purism did not rectify their websites. >> >> It is swindle if you deceive people in order to gain >> money. >> >> About fsf. >> fsf is known to be strict and harsh in matters of free >> software. It is a mystery why fsf has acted that amateurishly >> about purism. That is why I ask, has fsf received money >> or hardware from purism? Are there people who at the >> same time represent both fsf and purism? >> >>> In general, you're more likely to learn and also to get others to listen >>> when you express concerns from a position of genuine curiosity without >>> hints of accusations and other attacks. >> >> You do realize I have stated arguments? You have not. A >> pattern I have noticed from other defenders of purism. >> >> fsf has been informed by me and maybe others, how >> purism has acted. It makes fsf an accessory in >> purism's fraud. fsf failure on this matter results in loss of >> credibility among those who are able to look behind >> purism's deceptions. >> >> >> >>> It can also help to try to create a *strong-man* argument. Generate the >>> strongest argument you can for a defense of Purism and FSF, and then see >>> if that holds up to scrutiny. That's much more insightful than >>> generating weak or straw-man arguments or speculative suspicions. >> >> Start rebut my arguments. >> > I made no arguments because I don't have a position on this, I don't > know that you are are, and I wasn't defending Purism. > > What I did was demonstrate a more effective way of communicating by > verifying if I understood, describing where I agree, and offering > feedback. All I'm saying is that you are inherently likely to be read > dismissively with the style of posting you used. Style has no relation > to accuracy. Someone can have effective style and be wrong or have lousy > style and be right. But people won't listen to badly-communicated ideas > that are still right. > > To avoid dismissal by others, I suggest you state the clear facts > distinctly from the accusations and stories. You already did better in > your reply to me. But for further clarification, something like this: > > "Purism claimed working toward X, but X is effectively impossible. > The suspicion I have is that they are not acting in good faith. > FSF let them present at LibrePlanet. The story in my mind is: FSF should > have independently recognized the concerns I have and not trust Purism > to be acting in good faith." > > I don't know if your suspicions are valid or not. All I know is that the > type of animosity I've seen toward Purism has resulted in posts > attacking them with language that assumes bad faith rather than posts > that lead me to share that conclusion. There's a spectrum from misguided > good faith to all-out bad faith. I don't have enough evidence to convict > Purism of bad faith, even though I can accept the criticism of some of > their marketing.
pEpkey.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
