8 ms·

Without "due process" Trial by Twitter(tm) is going to end like the Reign of Terror at the end of the French Revolution. Stallman had said more than enough to

Without "due process" Trial by Twitter(tm) is going to end like the Reign of Terror at the end of the French Revolution. Stallman had said more than enough to merit his termination IMO, but he still deserved due process before such judgment was passed.

joshuamorton 7y ago
What due process does someone deserve before termination, and are you claiming Stallman didn't get it?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Do you think it's fair to be fired, should someone spin a social media storm against you? Do you think this dynamic becoming increasingly frequent is healthy for society?
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    That depends. If there are valid reasons for me to be fired, (as there were in this case), yes. Irrespective of any social media storm, I'd fire an employee who defended paedophilia or excused rape, statutory or otherwise. As a business owner, if I felt that an employees continued employment was a net negative for my profitability, I'd be forced to let them go. Perhaps I could keep them for a while, but that's the case. Yes, I think powerful people facing consequences for doing and saying absolutely abysmal things is a net good for society. Going from no, to some, in egregious cases, accountability is great. RMS shouldn't get a pass for this. Especially not since he's done the same thing before. Especially since now it's concrete and deals with real people and not just abstract ideas. The threat of an abstract "you could get fired too for saying a truly terrible thing" falls flat because, well, I don't make a habit of doing that. You'd have better luck claiming that I benefit from people making statements that could get them mobbed. But that too is unconvincing: people who I benefit from sharing their views are pushed out anyway via structural dynamics, often due to the things powerful people who don't face consequences do and say. And then of course, it's not like my life, or his would be ruined. Damore is, as I understand it, gainfully employed and mostly out of the public eye. I'll ask my questions again since you didn't answer: what due process does one deserve before being fired? What of that did Stallman not receive?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > Irrespective of any social media storm, I'd fire an employee who defended paedophilia or excused rape, statutory or otherwise. That's fair. However in this case, his "eccentric" views were widely known for years in the FS/OS community. It took a media shitstorm to turn that into a firing offence, which tells you it's not about the content of the views. > As a business owner, if I felt that an employees continued employment was a net negative for my profitability, I'd be forced to let them go. That's fair too, and similar argument can be made for a non-profit. At best all I could accuse the various organizations that disassociated with RMS is that they lack backbone and yield to pressure, or try to capitalize on the outrage, but that's not a problem. Market entities do what they do. But they wouldn't have to, if the story wasn't spun. It's not the e-mails themselves that ended his career, it's how they were fed to the media and then blew up there - especially as this story shows how the reporting doesn't even have to be truthful; lying in a headline and not linking to primary source is standard journalism nowadays. > The threat of an abstract "you could get fired too for saying a truly terrible thing" falls flat because, well, I don't make a habit of doing that. You'd have better luck claiming that I benefit from people making statements that could get them mobbed. But that too is unconvincing: people who I benefit from sharing their views are pushed out anyway via structural dynamics, often due to the things powerful people who don't face consequences do and say. Today me, tomorrow you. Each of us has said something that could be misconstrued into a fireable offence, and the problem is that structural dynamics and mob sentiments change; if you accept people being labeled as undesirable for just expressing an atypical opinion and attempts at removing such undesirables from the society, don't be surprised if five years from now it happens to someone you like. > And then of course, it's not like my life, or his would be ruined. Damore is, as I understand it, gainfully employed and mostly out of the public eye. Damore is young, and its firing was on such weak grounds that there was a lot of people who wouldn't mind him on board once publicity died down. (At least that was just after the firing; I haven't followed his life since, but I hear that he ended up radicalizing; wonder if the mob ended up being the cause.) RMS is AFAIK 66, and haven't worked in software in 40 years. His job was essentially being an icon of the movement, and now that this was destroyed, he's essentially unemployable. At best, he'll retire. > I'll ask my questions again since you didn't answer: what due process does one deserve before being fired? What of that did Stallman not receive? I purposefully didn't use the words "due process". Anyway, I'll answer with a counterquestion: what protections do people deserve from being killed in a flood or an avalanche? Floods and avalanches kill people, that's what they do. And yet protections are instituted so that innocent people don't find themselves unexpectedly in harm's way. Similarly, companies fire people who become a net loss to them, but in recent years, there's been an uptick of cases where someone's private or semi-public conversations have been misconstrued and blogged or Tweeted about with the express purpose of causing a public outrage and ruin the career of that someone. Maybe we need to talk about protections from such events, and even focus on the people who push others under the train because they find their opinions offensive.
  - bandrami 7y ago
    So, you're saying anybody should be able to avoid being fired simply by whipping up a social media storm against themselves? I can see a lot of possible abuses here.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      A social media storm around you rarely works to your advantage. Sure, if you're lucky enough (spinning up a drama isn't a sure-fire thing), you may avoid getting fired until the ruckus dies down and reporters move to a different story (i.e. couple of days, maybe weeks), but your life at work becomes a living hell as you're now a persona non grata and good luck finding another job, where sane employers would prefer to avoid someone with history of spinning public outrage against companies for leverage. To continue with military analogies, social media storms are like gas weapons. They're effective if launched at a distant enemy (though if you're not careful, the wind may carry it back towards you), and not something a force would use around itself when engaged in combat.
- oneshot908 7y ago
  You assemble the evidence before as impartial a committee as you can, and you let them make the decision. I think in this case Stallman is an offensive personality who says offensive things on company time using company equipment. That's going to be a no-brainer. That said, I have a nagging worry from watching some videos of his behavior that he is mentally ill and there might be a backlash from that. But why we can't allow a process like that to transpire before passing judgment is beyond me. Why wishing such an impartial judgment upon him is downvote worthy is really worrisome to me. That's not what western democracies are about as I understood them up to now. I Just do not believe we should make career-ending decisions like this based on the rage of a mob on social media, that's literally a Black Mirror episode (and a really bad episode of The Orville as well). I believe their role is to raise awareness of situations like to the point where the above should transpire. Does holding that viewpoint now make me subject to "cancellation" as well?
  - widowlark 7y ago
    There has never been 'due process' when it comes to a private companies decisions regarding hiring or firing. Should we trust the government to make that decision for a private organization?
    - oneshot908 7y ago
      That's one of the purposes of HR. Watch any corporate harassment training video if you don't believe me. TLDR: the accusation of harassment is 100% determined by the accuser. The determination of whether harassment occurred OTOH is decided by HR after judging the merits (or lack thereof) of the case. I see no reason why MIT shouldn't have proceeded similarly. And while you might argue that's not 100% impartial, that's a lot better than a Twitter mob (to me at least). Given the piles of video and text of Stallman being Stallman, and the "Hot Ladies" bit on his office door, do you really think they would have high-fived his conduct and told him to carry on? I'm cynical, but I'm not that cynical. Or let's put this another way. The Unabomber and Charles Manson got their due process. Are you saying Stallman is worse than both of them? So I'm guessing you guys downvoting me no longer believe in our legal system? That'll end well I'm sure.
widowlark 7y ago
Are you really comparing the murder of aristocrats to someone getting fired for defending a pedophile? Do you really find murder to be equivalent to this?

joshuamorton 7y ago

What due process does someone deserve before termination, and are you claiming Stallman didn't get it?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Do you think it's fair to be fired, should someone spin a social media storm against you? Do you think this dynamic becoming increasingly frequent is healthy for society?
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  That depends. If there are valid reasons for me to be fired, (as there were in this case), yes. Irrespective of any social media storm, I'd fire an employee who defended paedophilia or excused rape, statutory or otherwise. As a business owner, if I felt that an employees continued employment was a net negative for my profitability, I'd be forced to let them go. Perhaps I could keep them for a while, but that's the case. Yes, I think powerful people facing consequences for doing and saying absolutely abysmal things is a net good for society. Going from no, to some, in egregious cases, accountability is great. RMS shouldn't get a pass for this. Especially not since he's done the same thing before. Especially since now it's concrete and deals with real people and not just abstract ideas. The threat of an abstract "you could get fired too for saying a truly terrible thing" falls flat because, well, I don't make a habit of doing that. You'd have better luck claiming that I benefit from people making statements that could get them mobbed. But that too is unconvincing: people who I benefit from sharing their views are pushed out anyway via structural dynamics, often due to the things powerful people who don't face consequences do and say. And then of course, it's not like my life, or his would be ruined. Damore is, as I understand it, gainfully employed and mostly out of the public eye. I'll ask my questions again since you didn't answer: what due process does one deserve before being fired? What of that did Stallman not receive?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > Irrespective of any social media storm, I'd fire an employee who defended paedophilia or excused rape, statutory or otherwise. That's fair. However in this case, his "eccentric" views were widely known for years in the FS/OS community. It took a media shitstorm to turn that into a firing offence, which tells you it's not about the content of the views. > As a business owner, if I felt that an employees continued employment was a net negative for my profitability, I'd be forced to let them go. That's fair too, and similar argument can be made for a non-profit. At best all I could accuse the various organizations that disassociated with RMS is that they lack backbone and yield to pressure, or try to capitalize on the outrage, but that's not a problem. Market entities do what they do. But they wouldn't have to, if the story wasn't spun. It's not the e-mails themselves that ended his career, it's how they were fed to the media and then blew up there - especially as this story shows how the reporting doesn't even have to be truthful; lying in a headline and not linking to primary source is standard journalism nowadays. > The threat of an abstract "you could get fired too for saying a truly terrible thing" falls flat because, well, I don't make a habit of doing that. You'd have better luck claiming that I benefit from people making statements that could get them mobbed. But that too is unconvincing: people who I benefit from sharing their views are pushed out anyway via structural dynamics, often due to the things powerful people who don't face consequences do and say. Today me, tomorrow you. Each of us has said something that could be misconstrued into a fireable offence, and the problem is that structural dynamics and mob sentiments change; if you accept people being labeled as undesirable for just expressing an atypical opinion and attempts at removing such undesirables from the society, don't be surprised if five years from now it happens to someone you like. > And then of course, it's not like my life, or his would be ruined. Damore is, as I understand it, gainfully employed and mostly out of the public eye. Damore is young, and its firing was on such weak grounds that there was a lot of people who wouldn't mind him on board once publicity died down. (At least that was just after the firing; I haven't followed his life since, but I hear that he ended up radicalizing; wonder if the mob ended up being the cause.) RMS is AFAIK 66, and haven't worked in software in 40 years. His job was essentially being an icon of the movement, and now that this was destroyed, he's essentially unemployable. At best, he'll retire. > I'll ask my questions again since you didn't answer: what due process does one deserve before being fired? What of that did Stallman not receive? I purposefully didn't use the words "due process". Anyway, I'll answer with a counterquestion: what protections do people deserve from being killed in a flood or an avalanche? Floods and avalanches kill people, that's what they do. And yet protections are instituted so that innocent people don't find themselves unexpectedly in harm's way. Similarly, companies fire people who become a net loss to them, but in recent years, there's been an uptick of cases where someone's private or semi-public conversations have been misconstrued and blogged or Tweeted about with the express purpose of causing a public outrage and ruin the career of that someone. Maybe we need to talk about protections from such events, and even focus on the people who push others under the train because they find their opinions offensive.
- bandrami 7y ago
  So, you're saying anybody should be able to avoid being fired simply by whipping up a social media storm against themselves? I can see a lot of possible abuses here.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    A social media storm around you rarely works to your advantage. Sure, if you're lucky enough (spinning up a drama isn't a sure-fire thing), you may avoid getting fired until the ruckus dies down and reporters move to a different story (i.e. couple of days, maybe weeks), but your life at work becomes a living hell as you're now a persona non grata and good luck finding another job, where sane employers would prefer to avoid someone with history of spinning public outrage against companies for leverage. To continue with military analogies, social media storms are like gas weapons. They're effective if launched at a distant enemy (though if you're not careful, the wind may carry it back towards you), and not something a force would use around itself when engaged in combat.
oneshot908 7y ago
You assemble the evidence before as impartial a committee as you can, and you let them make the decision. I think in this case Stallman is an offensive personality who says offensive things on company time using company equipment. That's going to be a no-brainer. That said, I have a nagging worry from watching some videos of his behavior that he is mentally ill and there might be a backlash from that. But why we can't allow a process like that to transpire before passing judgment is beyond me. Why wishing such an impartial judgment upon him is downvote worthy is really worrisome to me. That's not what western democracies are about as I understood them up to now. I Just do not believe we should make career-ending decisions like this based on the rage of a mob on social media, that's literally a Black Mirror episode (and a really bad episode of The Orville as well). I believe their role is to raise awareness of situations like to the point where the above should transpire. Does holding that viewpoint now make me subject to "cancellation" as well?
- widowlark 7y ago
  There has never been 'due process' when it comes to a private companies decisions regarding hiring or firing. Should we trust the government to make that decision for a private organization?
  - oneshot908 7y ago
    That's one of the purposes of HR. Watch any corporate harassment training video if you don't believe me. TLDR: the accusation of harassment is 100% determined by the accuser. The determination of whether harassment occurred OTOH is decided by HR after judging the merits (or lack thereof) of the case. I see no reason why MIT shouldn't have proceeded similarly. And while you might argue that's not 100% impartial, that's a lot better than a Twitter mob (to me at least). Given the piles of video and text of Stallman being Stallman, and the "Hot Ladies" bit on his office door, do you really think they would have high-fived his conduct and told him to carry on? I'm cynical, but I'm not that cynical. Or let's put this another way. The Unabomber and Charles Manson got their due process. Are you saying Stallman is worse than both of them? So I'm guessing you guys downvoting me no longer believe in our legal system? That'll end well I'm sure.

widowlark 7y ago

Are you really comparing the murder of aristocrats to someone getting fired for defending a pedophile? Do you really find murder to be equivalent to this?