We, the anonymous editors of the Stallman report, have published our investigation of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation today to a general audience:
https://stallman-report.org
Our report exhaustively catalogues, analyzes, and offers a rebuttal of Richard Stallman's political program of sexual violence, catalogues credible allegations of misconduct, and documents the misconduct of the #FSF circa 2019 and 2021. Please read and share our work.
Boosts encouraged.
[#]freesoftware
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from report_press@mastodon.social
@report_press@mastodon.social It's been nearly 4 years since the open letter failed to achieve anything.
Get over it, bruh.
:gnujihad:
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
@report_press@mastodon.social Can I also just say that personally attacking people through an anonymous report is also a very lame thing to do?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
@SuperDicq @report_press defending a known sex pest though, that's supa-coo 🙄
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from stripey@meow.social
@stripey@meow.social @report_press@mastodon.social "known sex pest"
Having some controversial political opinions and that one Betsy story from 45 years ago are pretty far from being a sex pest.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
@SuperDicq @stripey @report_press
What controversial political opinions are you referring to?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from DaveMWilburn@infosec.exchange
@DaveMWilburn@infosec.exchange @stripey@meow.social @report_press@mastodon.social The same old quotes about things that are generally considered socially unacceptable to merely disagree on with the rest of society like age of consent and pornography.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
@SuperDicq @stripey @report_press
I see, so you think that the question of whether grownups should be able to have sex with children is just something that we might respectfully "merely disagree" on?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from DaveMWilburn@infosec.exchange
@DaveMWilburn@infosec.exchange @stripey@meow.social @report_press@mastodon.social No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
A lot of people (including you apparently) are literally incapable of having a civil political discussion around the laws that govern sex without immediately painting the other side of the argument as disgusting pedophiles or something. There is a huge taboo around even discussing these things!
Like for example what should be proper age of consent? Should it be 16, 17, 18, or maybe even 21? If your answer differs only slightly from the norm in your region of the world you will be called a pedophile guaranteed.
Same when it comes to the banning of pornography that includes animals for example. We should be able to have a civil discussion if the criminalization of possession of these types of pornography can be considered censorship while keeping subjective morals of doing so in the first place about this out of the discussion.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
@SuperDicq @report_press OK, so since I have lots of pending work with very tight deadlines but zero (0) concentration skills, I’m gonna dig my own grave for no benefit whatsoever :blobcatsip:
I strongly agree that age of consent as a hard line is nonsense. There’s no universal, discrete time period where sexual and mental maturity are reached. It’s so nonsense that in countries like mine, you’ll find that courts basically ignore it even in cases of a significant age gap as factors like “mental age” are instead considered. There’s even cases of minors sexually abusing adults, the elderly, etc. imho the important thing is power imbalances and vulnerability, and those can only be properly considered case-by-case. And I see why legal age can hinder development of teenagers as Stallman says, as if they were all innocent, pure beings of light until reaching 18 (or even 25 as some are saying by now????), with no right to e.g. any pornography or sexting, regardless of how healthy it may be.
However. Stallman makes the point that all teenagers should be treated as sexual equivalents to adults, being able to offer consent accordingly. I am also strongly against this idea. Shouldn’t be hard to see why: 12 year olds are in average less mature than, say, 40 year olds. In fact, at 12 one barely even starts knowing they have impulses and desires, and most likely don’t even know much about their bodies, let alone social dynamics, law, giving birth, etc. Learning the hard way is probably not the best course of action. The report makes a decent job of giving examples.
Also, (producing) CSAM bad. Shouldn’t be really worth arguing about.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from xerz@fedi.xerz.one
@xerz@fedi.xerz.one @report_press@mastodon.social I just want to make very clear I do not agree with Stallman on these topics, but I do not think he should be called a pedophile for simply voicing his opinion.
And yes producing CSAM is bad. The A stands for abuse, abuse is always bad, there's no arguments here.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
@SuperDicq @report_press He's not being called anything for "simply voicing his opinion". Most of us go through a phase where we question such things. (I basically came to the same conclusion as @xerz, with a little more pessimism about the ability of law to represent such nuanced concepts as "power relations", aged 15-ish.)
I think the fact he still holds these views, even after dozens of people have explained to him how he's wrong and harming others, is worthy of criticism.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
@wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org @report_press@mastodon.social @xerz@fedi.xerz.one Sure, I can agree with the criticism, that's fair.
But I don't see how this is something worthy of ruining someone's career, credibility and boycotting every organization he's associated with?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
@SuperDicq @xerz @report_press It's not. It's obviously not. But that's not what's happening.
Richard Stallman refuses to improve as a person, except in exceptional, increasingly-rare circumstances, and people in positions of power are closing ranks around him.
If he was just an arsehole nobody who contributed some ideas, that's one thing. If he was an influential arsehole who worked on himself (e.g. Linus Torvalds), that's another thing. But he's made himself a political figure.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
@SuperDicq @xerz @report_press At any point, he has the option of no longer being a political figure. He doesn't have to resign from free software, or even activism, so long as he isn't wielding the power of organisations and bureaucracy and other people's labour for his own ends.
I've stated above some parts of my views about certain political issues unrelated to the issue of free software—about which of those activities are or aren't unjust. Your views about them might differ,
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
@SuperDicq @xerz @report_press
and that's precisely the point.
— https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html, Richard Stallman (2012)
“The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom. We defend the rights of all software users.”
When protecting Richard Stallman's desire to have influence is at odds with the FSF's mission, freedom 0 takes precedence.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
@SuperDicq @xerz @report_press On a personal note: I don't think Richard Stallman should be in charge of the FSF, but I also plan to request his feedback on something. (And yes, of course, I would credit him if he were to contribute to it.)
I don't think we should exclude Richard Stallman. But, acknowledging that he is often unpleasant to be around and interact with, we should not require anybody to do so.
Keeping him on in his position in the FSF amounts to that requirement.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
@wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org @xerz@fedi.xerz.one @report_press@mastodon.social Sure, that's probably one of the first reasonable takes I've heard from someone who opposes Stallman being in charge of the FSF.
I don't agree, but I can see why you would think that.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).