4 ms·

I mention this elsewhere in this sub-thread, but RMS was not completely out of line in 2003 or 2006 writing those kind of things. It was an era when it was stil

I mention this elsewhere in this sub-thread, but RMS was not completely out of line in 2003 or 2006 writing those kind of things. It was an era when it was still an open question whether the Wikipedia should have pro-pedophilia advocacy in their entries. For the record, I have never endorsed those positions [1], but I also see that they were on the fringe of acceptable discussion at the time. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=4770710 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_mo... for how I felt about pro-pedophile advocacy back in 2004, in an era when a small outspoken fringe worked really hard to make it part of the Wikipedia.

mantoto 7y ago
Just because a few people where discussing this doesn't make it out of line. I remember 2003-2006 well enough. There was no discussion in society about this.
- stuaxo 7y ago
  This - it may be the case that Wikipedia was discussing this, but mainstream society was just the same as now. The episode of Brass eye lambasting the scares about it actually came out in 2001, so the assertion is nonsense.
DanBC 7y ago
> It was an era when it was still an open question whether the Wikipedia should have pro-pedophilia advocacy in their entries. NAMBLA and similar will take every opportunity to push pro-paedophile[1] and pro-abuse positions. Your example just speaks to the nativity of Wikipedia (and a bunch of other US tech companies) around people who commit contact offences against children. But we need to be clear: this was not in anyway a mainstream position. It was a smallish number of child abusers gaming a system. The most recent example isn't just about what he said though. It's about how he said it. And it's this that people find unacceptable. The discussion was about how to manage the potentially serious image problem when a high profile member of the organisation has been accused of sexually assaulting a child. Either he doesn't know that this is the wrong time to say those things, or he does know and doesn't care, but either way it made it harder for other people to do their job - managing the comms of having your organisation financially linked to a high profile sex offender. [1] I guess we need to say that some people with a sexual interest in children will not commit offences against children, and so some pro-paedophile commentary is acceptable.
- throwiay789 7y ago
  >I guess we need to say that some people with a sexual interest in children will not commit offences against children, and so some pro-paedophile commentary is acceptable. this is just incredibly stupid to believe, pro-paedophile commentary is acceptable? why in the ever living fk would that be aceptable? because a pedo might not actually commit those acts? are you stupid?
  - throwaway72729 7y ago
    Are you trying to advocate here that it’s at all acceptable to police thought crimes?
  - dang 7y ago
    We've banned this account. Posting like this will get your main account banned as well, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - throwiay789 7y ago
      ok

mantoto 7y ago

Just because a few people where discussing this doesn't make it out of line. I remember 2003-2006 well enough. There was no discussion in society about this.

stuaxo 7y ago
This - it may be the case that Wikipedia was discussing this, but mainstream society was just the same as now. The episode of Brass eye lambasting the scares about it actually came out in 2001, so the assertion is nonsense.

DanBC 7y ago

> It was an era when it was still an open question whether the Wikipedia should have pro-pedophilia advocacy in their entries. NAMBLA and similar will take every opportunity to push pro-paedophile[1] and pro-abuse positions. Your example just speaks to the nativity of Wikipedia (and a bunch of other US tech companies) around people who commit contact offences against children. But we need to be clear: this was not in anyway a mainstream position. It was a smallish number of child abusers gaming a system. The most recent example isn't just about what he said though. It's about how he said it. And it's this that people find unacceptable. The discussion was about how to manage the potentially serious image problem when a high profile member of the organisation has been accused of sexually assaulting a child. Either he doesn't know that this is the wrong time to say those things, or he does know and doesn't care, but either way it made it harder for other people to do their job - managing the comms of having your organisation financially linked to a high profile sex offender. [1] I guess we need to say that some people with a sexual interest in children will not commit offences against children, and so some pro-paedophile commentary is acceptable.

throwiay789 7y ago
>I guess we need to say that some people with a sexual interest in children will not commit offences against children, and so some pro-paedophile commentary is acceptable. this is just incredibly stupid to believe, pro-paedophile commentary is acceptable? why in the ever living fk would that be aceptable? because a pedo might not actually commit those acts? are you stupid?
- throwaway72729 7y ago
  Are you trying to advocate here that it’s at all acceptable to police thought crimes?
- dang 7y ago
  We've banned this account. Posting like this will get your main account banned as well, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - throwiay789 7y ago
    ok