Re: RMS and fresh censorship attempts
I thank Mr. Jean Louis for taking the time to sort out the facts. As I said in a previous post, I've seen several news articles claiming that Richard Stallman "defended" Jeffrey Epstein. Now a reputable news outlet like Washington Post or Le Monde wouldn't write something like that. Richard Stallman is a public figure. A decent media firm would contact him and ask some questions: "Have you ever met Jeffrey Epstein?" "What is your impression of him?" "What do you think of the victims?" "Now what you've said so far contradicts what others, mainly women, are saying about you. Why the difference?" "Do you have any evidence to support your claim?" This is due procedure. A news agency that prints material harmful to someone's reputation without even trying to interview the person in question is simply not doing its job. I am saying this because we here have higher standards of professional work. I'm pretty sure some of us here have done work on communication software that newspapers, magazines and TV companies use to publish and disseminate their online versions. Why should media which fails to do basic fact-checks be allowed to have influence on society, over and above us? If this goes on, we will be disqualified even before we open our mouths. And why are multiple organizations (or representatives thereof) making public statements at this moment? They ought to be fully aware of the nature of the news that is circulating right now.
Re: Truth matters when writing software and selecting leaders
Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote: On 2021-03-25 18:57, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote: On 2021-03-24 19:55, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: [...] I now wonder if we may be seeing a different angle of an attack on the GNU project that RMS did not anticipate. I also have similar suspicions. If you can replace the stewards of free software with meek, emotional weaklings, or fools, you can easily manipulate those projects in whatever direction you see fit. "You must accept this backdoor patch because it's written by a member of a vulnerable, disadvantaged group." If you don't think that's coming, just sit back and watch. I have vague memories of similar incidents having already occurred, although I do not recall exactly what they were. I think they were actually demands for direct commit access, on the grounds that none of the active developers were [insert FOOBAR group name here]. I want to say that the attempts failed, but I am not certain. [...] Those incidents could have been "innocent" in the sense that the person was really just working on their own and actually member of [FOOBAR group], just with a really oboxious personality and way of thinking. The conspiracy-like theory of mine that I'm referring to is that the submitter is not actually a member of any [FOOBAR group]. The claim is fake, used by some nefarious agency to push rogue commits. There was a time when I would call you paranoid for that, but then Snowden (never mind how that guy somehow got a security clearance after publicly stating his intention to leak whatever he could grab -- my tax dollars at work bungling a background check, obviously) dumped a bunch of documents, and even if I still doubt the NSA would go quite that far against the GNU project, I am convinced that there are plenty of foreign agencies that would try it. To make it crystal clear, I am not in any way "FOOBAR-phobic" or whatever. I think I might remember what FOOBAR actually was, but I deliberately replaced it with a placeholder to exclude any question of irrational fears related to any specific group. That strategy will easily work if the project leaders have been replaced by mental/emotional weaklings, by some coup in which the original leaders were displaced for faintly smelling of being resistant to unconditional "inclusivity". You mean like the ousting of Brendan Eich, who had stated in no uncertain terms that Firefox would not support DRM, after which Mozilla reversed that decision? That also ignores the harm that that larger incident has likely done to the cause of transparency in politics, since the activists specifically promised the court that there would be no harassment of the people whose names they wanted revealed, a promise that was quickly shown to be utterly worthless. The next shady group that wants to keep their donor list secret can now point to that case and its aftermath as justification. I'm not even saying anything like that the new project leaders are moles. Basically everyone involved, up to that point, had just been a pawn being played. Let me articulate the crazy conspiracy theory more precisely: some nefarious agencies are injecting animosity into free software communities in order to create disruption which will have the result of bringing changes into projects, such that the leadership of those projects becomes more docile and pliable in the face of pressure from those nefarious agencies. Nefarious agencies could be corporations, governments (local and foreign), you name it. The major problem I have with this is that I do not recall seeing any of the initial disruptions your conspiracy theory posits. The disruption is what causes certain social activists to take notice of free software and become attracted to free software projects in the first place. Can you show such disruptions prior to the arrival of the certain social activists? I suspect that the activists were also the sources of the initial disruptions. This is one of the reasons that they have not gotten very far, as they are simply invaders in every sense and they do not fit amongst us at all. Even the attacks on RMS are predominately based on pressure from outside of our community, although they may expose foolish, cowardly, or deluded members of our community. "Hey there is this world of free software which is really great and powers most of the Internet. But I hear stories about how it's run by volunteers some of whom are bad people. Racists, trans-phobics, defenders of pedophilia and sex trafficking. That's how I even heard about this stuff in the first place, sadly! Well, we can fix that. Gosh, darn it, I'm gonna join one of these projects and do something about it!" The solution here is to refuse to create sinecure positions of any sort and to demand technical competence for technical work. The worst of the social activists, whose only skill is whining, will be
Re: police report against the petition mob
On 27/03/2021 01:05, DJ Delorie wrote: > > There's a huge difference between an armed insurrection at a political > capital, and people expressing their opinions calmly in writing > (regardless of what those opinions are, or how much you sensationalize > them). Choosing such highly "emotionally charged" words when making > such unfair comparisons only adds fuel to the fire. > > Please use kinder words. > > (and I mean this for people on both sides of this conversation) > It is not about the presence of weapons The issue here is about the polarization, asking people to take sides Asking people to use the force of numbers instead of developing leadership If people want to replace RMS or the leader of any organization or country then the best way to do so is by demonstrating a higher standard of leadership.
Re: police report against the petition mob
There's a huge difference between an armed insurrection at a political capital, and people expressing their opinions calmly in writing (regardless of what those opinions are, or how much you sensationalize them). Choosing such highly "emotionally charged" words when making such unfair comparisons only adds fuel to the fire. Please use kinder words. (and I mean this for people on both sides of this conversation)
police report against the petition mob
If you feel the same pain watching the attacks on RMS that you felt watching the mob at the US Capitol then you are a witness to a crime. https://debian.community/molly-de-blanc-arrest-and-prosecution-for-cyberbullying/
Uncensored Speakers invitation today/tonight, Honorary Membership for RMS
I've written to the President of Uncensored Speakers and suggested making RMS an Honorary Member The next meeting is 18:50 UTC today, that is in about 45 minutes from now. There is a guest speaker from Harvard, Professor Latica Tomasic Kickert will talk about leadership. The meetings are usually held in a Dublin bar but they are online due to the pandemic Free as in beer or Free as in Zoom https://us02web.zoom.us/j/277302726?pwd=VjFuVy9rUXpEMXRLRFhRc1pYZHRMUT09 https://uncensoredspeakers.toastmasterclub.org/
Re: Truth matters when writing software and selecting leaders
On 2021-03-25 18:57, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote: On 2021-03-24 19:55, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: Does there appear to be some form of hidden coordination behind these articles? As I understand, RMS always thought that proprietary software companies would make some kind of large legal attack on the GNU project, so he was very particular about setting up the FSF and arranging for copyrights on many GNU packages to be held by the FSF. If we interpret the SCO mess as that attack, the strategy seems to have worked: SCO did not attack GNU, but instead attempted to attack the Linux kernel project. Ultimately, they failed but I now wonder if we may be seeing a different angle of an attack on the GNU project that RMS did not anticipate. I also have similar suspicions. If you can replace the stewards of free software with meek, emotional weaklings, or fools, you can easily manipulate those projects in whatever direction you see fit. "You must accept this backdoor patch because it's written by a member of a vulnerable, disadvantaged group." If you don't think that's coming, just sit back and watch. I have vague memories of similar incidents having already occurred, although I do not recall exactly what they were. I think they were actually demands for direct commit access, on the grounds that none of the active developers were [insert FOOBAR group name here]. I want to say that the attempts failed, but I am not certain. As a maintainer of a package that I did not write, I expect that I would react very badly to anyone trying to push an obviously defective patch on grounds of personal identity. Those incidents could have been "innocent" in the sense that the person was really just working on their own and actually member of [FOOBAR group], just with a really oboxious personality and way of thinking. The conspiracy-like theory of mine that I'm referring to is that the submitter is not actually a member of any [FOOBAR group]. The claim is fake, used by some nefarious agency to push rogue commits. To make it crystal clear, I am not in any way "FOOBAR-phobic" or whatever. That strategy will easily work if the project leaders have been replaced by mental/emotional weaklings, by some coup in which the original leaders were displaced for faintly smelling of being resistant to unconditional "inclusivity". I'm not even saying anything like that the new project leaders are moles. Basically everyone involved, up to that point, had just been a pawn being played. Let me articulate the crazy conspiracy theory more precisely: some nefarious agencies are injecting animosity into free software communities in order to create disruption which will have the result of bringing changes into projects, such that the leadership of those projects becomes more docile and pliable in the face of pressure from those nefarious agencies. Nefarious agencies could be corporations, governments (local and foreign), you name it. The disruption is what causes certain social activists to take notice of free software and become attracted to free software projects in the first place. "Hey there is this world of free software which is really great and powers most of the Internet. But I hear stories about how it's run by volunteers some of whom are bad people. Racists, trans-phobics, defenders of pedophilia and sex trafficking. That's how I even heard about this stuff in the first place, sadly! Well, we can fix that. Gosh, darn it, I'm gonna join one of these projects and do something about it!" Think of the analogy of smearing something with blood to attract predators. I think the most level-headed attitude to have is represented in that "no code of conduct". https://nocodeofconduct.com/ Projects must put up a barrier against allowing manipulation via irrelevant politics. All decisions must be purely technical. Nobody must be allowed to manipulate technical decisions, like what software changes are approved, by means of gender identity politics, race or anything else. This is necessary for software security and the survival of free software as such.
Re: RMS and fresh censorship attempts
* Daniel Pocock [2021-03-25 21:21]: > > I don't know if this message will be received or not > > Is it a coincidence that RMS returns to the FSF board and there is a > simultaneous campaign to censor blogs from other web sites and > services? Censorship, especially in US is on raise. You have not mentioned which websites. > Is anybody else experiencing these censorship attempts on mailing lists, > IRC, Planet sites, social media or anywhere else? Be more specific, did you experience adn what exactly happened? > The petition against RMS is a prima-facie example of cyberbullying Yes. And it derives from a case that was not looked upon by none of the people who are led to believe that RMS did something wrong. He is not even related to a case. We never even spoke or mentioned the case, and that does not help in discovery of how perpetrators of defamation of RMS deviate the words of the alleged victim -- not related to RMS at all. The alleged victim of Epstein is Virginia Giuffre, and in her deposition she said that "she was sent to have sex" with various people, and when asked to clarify if she had sex with those people she repeated that "she was sent to have sex" -- not that she had sex with those people. She has hard time remembering faces of people that she said to have slept with them and she asked third parties to help her with names -- and third parties gave her some few names, like "this one, we believe he is the one" -- but how third party can know what happened to her? In general her boss was telling her to have sex with some people. She did not say she had sex actually, she said she was directed to go to places with them. It is because she was in the lifestyle she enjoyed and others enjoyed the lifestyle with her - as that is the statement in her deposition. Police was not called, why? Because they enjoyed the lifestyle. She enjoyed making pictures with people. She did not tell her parents until she got three children. Her parents were probably thinking she had a good time with famous people -- I just assume personally, they did not think she was sexually traficked, she did not report nothing bad happening to her at the time. Read the deposition paper. Epstein funded many people and organizations. How can those organizations and people know what is going on in somebody's else premises? They may not be related at all to Epstein cases. To be directed to make sex with somebody is quite different of actually having sex. And now we speak like it is all clear, but it is not clear, as 99.99% of people did not read the deposition papers, unspoken of reading all the evidences around those cases. So it is deposition and cases full of contradictions, and she admitted that she was giving false information several times. And then we speak of RMS who analyzed facts, much less than I am analyzing it right now - and he expressed his opinion, conclusion of the analysis -- that opinion is used by "terminate" him which must have OTHER purposes than those which are publicly expressed, as he said nothing else but what the victim admitted her own deposition, that she was enjoying the life style! One big LOL there! So RMS is to be boycotted and canceled for reiterating the victim's own deposition! Victim never said to be raped, she said she enjoyed the lifestyle and was directed to have sex with people which names she could not remember, and she did not say she had sex, she was sent to have sex. For a normal person, when we ask somebody: "Where were you sent by Joe to have sex with Jane?" - when person answers "Many places" -- that will for a normal person easily be taken out of the context and understood that person actually had sex with Jane, but for courts that does not fly. If we wish to look into the context exactly, we have to find the other question in the deposition where victim Virginia Giuffre is asked: "You had sex with X at many places is what you're saying, correct?" -- where she answers "I was sent to at many places to have sex with him." -- that is why many evidences were dropped from those cases, including the sexual trafficking allegations. The case is definitely beyond Minsky, as he is just mentioned in the case and Virginia did not say she had sex with Minsky, but that she was directed to have sex with Minsky. She had quite a choice there. The case was not about Minsky, it is something else, deposition: https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/read-virginia-giuffres-unsealed-deposition-where-she-accuses-jeffrey-epstein-and-ghislaine-maxwell-of-sex-trafficking-her/articleshow/77276576.cms https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7010864/Virginia-Giuffre-Maxwell-Deposition.pdf The case of Virginia Giuffre is totally not related to FSF, it is absolutely not related to GNU and not related to RMS. RMS just as any other person on this planet is free to access court documents, just as I accessed it and to make conclusions and personal
