9 ms·

I've read a bunch of ESR's writing, and I disagree with him on an awful lot of political and social issues. Chances are we wouldn't get along very well. Tone-p

I've read a bunch of ESR's writing, and I disagree with him on an awful lot of political and social issues. Chances are we wouldn't get along very well. Tone-policing, cancel culture, and identity politics are a real problem though, and it seems like they're getting out of hand. This is happening everywhere though - it's not unique to the open source world at all. I don't know what the right solution is. ESR and RMS (who recently got removed from the FSF) helped create the open-source movement that we have today. And they both were instrumental popularizing the hacker counter-culture that dominated Linux during its rise to prominence. Would I like them as people? Maybe. Probably not. I don't know. It seems wrong to marginalize them and cast them aside though, even if they're socially awkward or say the wrong thing sometimes.

geofft 7y ago
We also don't know what the movement would look like today if it weren't dominated by their personalities (and their personality conflicts) in its formative days. It's pretty clear that a lot of people were interested in the ideals behind their movements and contributed in massive ways to the success of the movements - it's not clear that either of them were needed to get the movement off the ground (see also, Great Man Theory).
- kazinator 7y ago
  What it would look like: an army of docile microserfs beavering away for free to make FOSS work better for Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, IBM, ... and the odd government who wants a crypto backdoor or two.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    This is a weird rejoinder to make in a thread about ESR, who was one of the loudest voices arguing for corporate-friendly language ("open-source" not "free software") and licenses (permissive, not copyleft).
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      And yet, if that's what it took to drive corporate adoption of open source software, it was almost certainly worth it... Can you imagine Linux in a world where companies like Google don't contribute kernel patches? Because I think that would look like a world where all the best OSes were proprietary.
      - kazinator 7y ago
        > Can you imagine Linux in a world where companies like Google don't contribute kernel patches? Not only can I imagine, but I lived in that world. > Because I think that would look like a world where all the best OSes were proprietary. Linux was excellent before ... Google even existed.
        SEJeff 7y ago
        One of the big breakout moments for Linux was when IBM added SMP support. Before then it was never useful for anything "serious" or commercial generally speaking. Linux was a really nice hobby before then.
        kazinator 7y ago
        I used SMP in 1995, using a 1.3 kernel. Board was an Asus with two 100 MHz Pentiums. I saw about a 35% speedup on a "make -j 3" back then; there was a lot of coarse-grained locking still (BKL), and the hardware wasn't good to begin with. I'm pretty sure IBM had nothing to do with Linux; the name that comes up in my mind when I think back to that time is "Alan Cox", not "IBM". I did contract work for infomine.com in 1994; it ran on Linux.
        api 7y ago
        There's a good chance Google wouldn't exist without it.
        jraph 7y ago
        Had Linux not existed, the world would possibly run on something based on a BSD kernel today, Google included. Maybe with a GNU userspace, maybe not. And LineageOS would probably have a hard time existing because the manufacturers would not be forced to release their kernels. We might have proprietary kernels optimised for Intel CPUs, too. The FSF might also have decided to continue the development of Hurd, or someone to write improvements to a BSD kernel under a GPL license.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    As opposed to the current open-source movement, which mostly consists of microserfs beavering away for a salary to make FOSS work better for all of the above? Let's face it, when the biggest contributor to the Linux kernel is Microsoft, the open source movement has very little to do with RMS' ideals.
    - kazinator 7y ago
      It is lamentable indeed, and this infiltrated, subverted movement now wants to purge itself of the old guard, who are not good for business.
- korethr 7y ago
  I seem to recall a post on his blog where he addressed this point. IIRC, his conclusion was that if it had not been him, then then the culture/movement/whatever would have eventually invented someone else like him. That is, someone would have eventually noticed the same things, come to the same or similar conclusions, recognized (or at least thought) they had the social skills/aptitude needed to successfully promote the ideas to the wider world, and gotten started. I can't disagree with that. The question to me is whether that would have happened around the same time, or if it would have taken several more years for the same things to click for someone else.
- atq2119 7y ago
  ESR probably wasn't personally needed. RMS may have been. Either way, to your statement about "the movement", I think it's important to keep in mind that a lot of what passes for hacker culture today is quite different from where those two hail from. How much overlap is there between the Tao of Programming and modern web development, for example? Whether that's good, bad, or just a value-neutral observation is pretty much up to the beholder.
  - btilly 7y ago
    Strongly agreed. ESR talked up his role and theories about how open source worked, but his writing was the main thing that he contributed. His attempts at contributing actual code did not have nearly the same impact. Nor has his description of how open source worked actually had the same impact. Even the OSI definition owes more to Ian Murdock (the "ian" in "debian") than it does to ESR. However if RMS and Brian Fox had not single-handedly set about reimplementing the Unix toolsystem back in the mid-1980s, the world would today be different. As much as RMS annoyed people by saying that Linux should be called GNU/Linux, he had a point. Linus contributed the kernel, but most of what people called Linux at the time was actually written by the FSF.
nemo44x 7y ago
It's just a power grab and has gone on forever in many forms. Redefine language and classify certain language as non-compliant under the guise of whatever it is that works to your advantage. Then use this to create systemic policy to dictate towards your goals and ultimately control whatever resource it is you were trying to colonize or acquire. Language is power and can greatly influence and define what masses of people think about their world view and their experience. Those who get to define which language is "appropriate" and which is not have a certain power to take as they please. "Tone-policing", "cancel culture", and "identity politics" aren't unique in the sense that they are designed to seize power, as this is a tale as old as time. It's a strategy that proponents believe will help their in-group and followers acquire and maintain power over cultural resources. I'm not saying this example is good, bad, or neutral - just what it is: Using language to project influence and power and take the cultural resources you want.
- Qwertious 7y ago
  AIUI, the point of codes of conduct (when used in good faith) are basically like FAQs or What Wikipedia Is Not[1] in that they're social bludgeons to avoid having the same fucking discussion with stubborn idiots, where they do this[2] to cause tedious repetitive arguments of how the project should be run. A code of conduct, AIUI, has two main effects: 1. You have written, formalised proof you can link to that e.g. you're expected to use XYZ pronouns - no tedious offtopic argument that drives people away. 2. If there is a dispute then there's a formal method of bringing up the argument - a feature request or BG report on the CoC. Or more practically, when writing the thing in the first place. And on the subject of whether it's warranted, this article[3]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_... [2] https://xkcd.com/1277/ https://xkcd.com/1277/ [3]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...
  - luckylion 7y ago
    when used in good faith is the key part there, though. If everything everybody ever proposed was only used in good faith, we'd be living in Utopia. > You have written, formalised proof you can link to that e.g. you're expected to use XYZ pronouns - no tedious offtopic argument that drives people away. They are usually way too vague to do that. "Be kind" hangs on who decides what is and isn't kind. It's my impression that that is generally by design, because they are supposed to enable selective enforcement.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bcheung 7y ago
I don't know about others, but personally, I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. It feels like you constantly need to tip-toe around with every word to avoid the risk of offending someone. I'm much more bothered by people trying to police the world than someone who is rude or that disagrees with me. In a properly functioning society, people need to be able to deal with beliefs they don't agree with and a certain amount of offensiveness. Sheltering people only makes them less able to function in society.
- pjscott 7y ago
  Probably the best we can do is to have a variety of places to discuss things, with a variety of rules and norms and purposes -- and an acknowledgement that one person's safe space is another person's nightmare. https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-spaces-and-competing-access-needs https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-sp...
  - luckylion 7y ago
    The issue seems to be that if something fun happens in a place that's not a safe space, other will come, demand to participate and then demand that it turns into a safe space so they can participate on their terms.
- downerending 7y ago
  > I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. I grew up in a rather hard-core religious environment where shaming was a common tactic to enforce conformance. I have no desire whatsoever to return to that.
- larrywright 7y ago
  In my experience, a lot of these people say they want tolerance, but what they really mean is tolerance of the ideas (and people) they agree with.
  - 7y ago
Shivetya 7y ago
All that is left is removing their names from code and projects they contributed so they do not exist. Don't that some won't try this and worse many will cheer it on. of course once that bridge is crossed they can attribute the work to someone currently approved of and more deserving
- johnny22 7y ago
  that is illegal and will never happen.
hosh 7y ago
I read RMS's article articulating what he called "kind communication". It was philosophically consistent with what he has been espousing for years -- free software, the concern for making sure that people have access to software. He expressed UI design philosophies along those lines, which I interpret as making sure people who were otherwise disadvantaged could still access the same powerful tools people with better devices can access. Who is going to advocate for that now? I don't think telling the truth, discussing divisive issues, and courtesy are mutually exclusive. I don't think the people outraged over Stallman's comments are wrong. There are some issues that we, as a society, have not really figured out. A lot of this stuff have been a long time (centuries?) in coming. However, I don't think the rampage of the outrage machine is the way to go either. At some point, we're going to have to pick up the pieces.
SI_Rob 7y ago
> Tone-policing, cancel culture, and identity politics are a real problem though The tyranny of structurelessness[0] strikes again. All of the above are symptomatic (though sometimes known by different names) of movements whose members disclaim official, understood hierarchies of governance. Members who seem to repeatedly forget, century after century, that power abhors a vacuum, and end up forming increasingly concentric, cryptic, personality-driven, and paranoid structures of influence because whatever the movement's stated objectives may be, someone still has to do the often mundane networking chores necessary to maintain group cohesion. These individuals then become natural nucleation sites for forms of power that have no direct relationship with the acknowledged objectives of the group. Such power expressed through the arbitrary control of prevailing group narrative language (tone policing), gatekeeping of influence (cancel culture), and authority over defining the many subjective unspoken rules by which status is acquired and asserted within or with respect to the group (identity politics being an instance of this class that that is inherited by all groups with a degree of internal diversity sufficient to build multiple coalitions behind). [0] https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
m463 7y ago
I'm reminded of the saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
adrianmonk 7y ago
> I don't know what the right solution is. This is a bit of a wild theory, which I definitely can't prove, but I am tempted to blame part of it on "zero tolerance" schools. Schools are meant to teach the material, but they're also meant to give students practice at working within a social framework. Being on time, speaking in turn, keeping track of assignments, relating to peers, etc. People have a lot of opinions on that, but the point is, it's reality. Kids are definitely picking up from schools an idea of what is normal when it comes to how social groups work. Before zero tolerance, when someone did something wrong, the normal way to handle it was to try to understand both sides, then exercise the discretion given to people in a position of authority, then make a judgment call that seemed fair, reasonable, and proportionate. But now the normal way to handle situations is to more or less unconditionally penalize the offender without any leeway being given. So now we have a whole generation or so of people who grew up having that style of authority modeled for them. When it comes time for them to exercise authority, what are they going to do but what they learned by example? If this wild theory is right, then a (long-term) answer is for schools to stop teaching our kids that this is how society should work.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Authoritarianism in schools is very old; it definitely didn't begin with what are now called "zero tolerance" policies. I'm pretty sure we would have noticed if attending an authoritarian school gave you an authoritarian personality style, especially given the interest in the latter in post-WW2 psych studies.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    > I'm pretty sure we would have noticed if attending an authoritarian school gave you an authoritarian personality style Wasn't it noticed though? Paddling students fell out of favor decades ago, in no small part I suspect because people began to realize that hitting kids wasn't teaching kids how to resolve conflicts effectively. The status quo before 'zero tolerance' was itself a radical departure from what came before it.
  - cookiecaper 7y ago

geofft 7y ago

We also don't know what the movement would look like today if it weren't dominated by their personalities (and their personality conflicts) in its formative days. It's pretty clear that a lot of people were interested in the ideals behind their movements and contributed in massive ways to the success of the movements - it's not clear that either of them were needed to get the movement off the ground (see also, Great Man Theory).

kazinator 7y ago
What it would look like: an army of docile microserfs beavering away for free to make FOSS work better for Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, IBM, ... and the odd government who wants a crypto backdoor or two.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  This is a weird rejoinder to make in a thread about ESR, who was one of the loudest voices arguing for corporate-friendly language ("open-source" not "free software") and licenses (permissive, not copyleft).
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    And yet, if that's what it took to drive corporate adoption of open source software, it was almost certainly worth it... Can you imagine Linux in a world where companies like Google don't contribute kernel patches? Because I think that would look like a world where all the best OSes were proprietary.
    - kazinator 7y ago
      > Can you imagine Linux in a world where companies like Google don't contribute kernel patches? Not only can I imagine, but I lived in that world. > Because I think that would look like a world where all the best OSes were proprietary. Linux was excellent before ... Google even existed.
      - SEJeff 7y ago
        One of the big breakout moments for Linux was when IBM added SMP support. Before then it was never useful for anything "serious" or commercial generally speaking. Linux was a really nice hobby before then.
        kazinator 7y ago
        I used SMP in 1995, using a 1.3 kernel. Board was an Asus with two 100 MHz Pentiums. I saw about a 35% speedup on a "make -j 3" back then; there was a lot of coarse-grained locking still (BKL), and the hardware wasn't good to begin with. I'm pretty sure IBM had nothing to do with Linux; the name that comes up in my mind when I think back to that time is "Alan Cox", not "IBM". I did contract work for infomine.com in 1994; it ran on Linux.
      - api 7y ago
        There's a good chance Google wouldn't exist without it.
        jraph 7y ago
        Had Linux not existed, the world would possibly run on something based on a BSD kernel today, Google included. Maybe with a GNU userspace, maybe not. And LineageOS would probably have a hard time existing because the manufacturers would not be forced to release their kernels. We might have proprietary kernels optimised for Intel CPUs, too. The FSF might also have decided to continue the development of Hurd, or someone to write improvements to a BSD kernel under a GPL license.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  As opposed to the current open-source movement, which mostly consists of microserfs beavering away for a salary to make FOSS work better for all of the above? Let's face it, when the biggest contributor to the Linux kernel is Microsoft, the open source movement has very little to do with RMS' ideals.
  - kazinator 7y ago
    It is lamentable indeed, and this infiltrated, subverted movement now wants to purge itself of the old guard, who are not good for business.
korethr 7y ago
I seem to recall a post on his blog where he addressed this point. IIRC, his conclusion was that if it had not been him, then then the culture/movement/whatever would have eventually invented someone else like him. That is, someone would have eventually noticed the same things, come to the same or similar conclusions, recognized (or at least thought) they had the social skills/aptitude needed to successfully promote the ideas to the wider world, and gotten started. I can't disagree with that. The question to me is whether that would have happened around the same time, or if it would have taken several more years for the same things to click for someone else.
atq2119 7y ago
ESR probably wasn't personally needed. RMS may have been. Either way, to your statement about "the movement", I think it's important to keep in mind that a lot of what passes for hacker culture today is quite different from where those two hail from. How much overlap is there between the Tao of Programming and modern web development, for example? Whether that's good, bad, or just a value-neutral observation is pretty much up to the beholder.
- btilly 7y ago
  Strongly agreed. ESR talked up his role and theories about how open source worked, but his writing was the main thing that he contributed. His attempts at contributing actual code did not have nearly the same impact. Nor has his description of how open source worked actually had the same impact. Even the OSI definition owes more to Ian Murdock (the "ian" in "debian") than it does to ESR. However if RMS and Brian Fox had not single-handedly set about reimplementing the Unix toolsystem back in the mid-1980s, the world would today be different. As much as RMS annoyed people by saying that Linux should be called GNU/Linux, he had a point. Linus contributed the kernel, but most of what people called Linux at the time was actually written by the FSF.

nemo44x 7y ago

It's just a power grab and has gone on forever in many forms. Redefine language and classify certain language as non-compliant under the guise of whatever it is that works to your advantage. Then use this to create systemic policy to dictate towards your goals and ultimately control whatever resource it is you were trying to colonize or acquire. Language is power and can greatly influence and define what masses of people think about their world view and their experience. Those who get to define which language is "appropriate" and which is not have a certain power to take as they please. "Tone-policing", "cancel culture", and "identity politics" aren't unique in the sense that they are designed to seize power, as this is a tale as old as time. It's a strategy that proponents believe will help their in-group and followers acquire and maintain power over cultural resources. I'm not saying this example is good, bad, or neutral - just what it is: Using language to project influence and power and take the cultural resources you want.

Qwertious 7y ago
AIUI, the point of codes of conduct (when used in good faith) are basically like FAQs or What Wikipedia Is Not[1] in that they're social bludgeons to avoid having the same fucking discussion with stubborn idiots, where they do this[2] to cause tedious repetitive arguments of how the project should be run. A code of conduct, AIUI, has two main effects: 1. You have written, formalised proof you can link to that e.g. you're expected to use XYZ pronouns - no tedious offtopic argument that drives people away. 2. If there is a dispute then there's a formal method of bringing up the argument - a feature request or BG report on the CoC. Or more practically, when writing the thing in the first place. And on the subject of whether it's warranted, this article[3]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_... [2] https://xkcd.com/1277/ https://xkcd.com/1277/ [3]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...
- luckylion 7y ago
  when used in good faith is the key part there, though. If everything everybody ever proposed was only used in good faith, we'd be living in Utopia. > You have written, formalised proof you can link to that e.g. you're expected to use XYZ pronouns - no tedious offtopic argument that drives people away. They are usually way too vague to do that. "Be kind" hangs on who decides what is and isn't kind. It's my impression that that is generally by design, because they are supposed to enable selective enforcement.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bcheung 7y ago

I don't know about others, but personally, I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. It feels like you constantly need to tip-toe around with every word to avoid the risk of offending someone. I'm much more bothered by people trying to police the world than someone who is rude or that disagrees with me. In a properly functioning society, people need to be able to deal with beliefs they don't agree with and a certain amount of offensiveness. Sheltering people only makes them less able to function in society.

pjscott 7y ago
Probably the best we can do is to have a variety of places to discuss things, with a variety of rules and norms and purposes -- and an acknowledgement that one person's safe space is another person's nightmare. https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-spaces-and-competing-access-needs https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-sp...
- luckylion 7y ago
  The issue seems to be that if something fun happens in a place that's not a safe space, other will come, demand to participate and then demand that it turns into a safe space so they can participate on their terms.
downerending 7y ago
> I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. I grew up in a rather hard-core religious environment where shaming was a common tactic to enforce conformance. I have no desire whatsoever to return to that.
larrywright 7y ago
In my experience, a lot of these people say they want tolerance, but what they really mean is tolerance of the ideas (and people) they agree with.
- 7y ago

Shivetya 7y ago

All that is left is removing their names from code and projects they contributed so they do not exist. Don't that some won't try this and worse many will cheer it on. of course once that bridge is crossed they can attribute the work to someone currently approved of and more deserving

johnny22 7y ago
that is illegal and will never happen.

hosh 7y ago

I read RMS's article articulating what he called "kind communication". It was philosophically consistent with what he has been espousing for years -- free software, the concern for making sure that people have access to software. He expressed UI design philosophies along those lines, which I interpret as making sure people who were otherwise disadvantaged could still access the same powerful tools people with better devices can access. Who is going to advocate for that now? I don't think telling the truth, discussing divisive issues, and courtesy are mutually exclusive. I don't think the people outraged over Stallman's comments are wrong. There are some issues that we, as a society, have not really figured out. A lot of this stuff have been a long time (centuries?) in coming. However, I don't think the rampage of the outrage machine is the way to go either. At some point, we're going to have to pick up the pieces.

SI_Rob 7y ago

> Tone-policing, cancel culture, and identity politics are a real problem though The tyranny of structurelessness[0] strikes again. All of the above are symptomatic (though sometimes known by different names) of movements whose members disclaim official, understood hierarchies of governance. Members who seem to repeatedly forget, century after century, that power abhors a vacuum, and end up forming increasingly concentric, cryptic, personality-driven, and paranoid structures of influence because whatever the movement's stated objectives may be, someone still has to do the often mundane networking chores necessary to maintain group cohesion. These individuals then become natural nucleation sites for forms of power that have no direct relationship with the acknowledged objectives of the group. Such power expressed through the arbitrary control of prevailing group narrative language (tone policing), gatekeeping of influence (cancel culture), and authority over defining the many subjective unspoken rules by which status is acquired and asserted within or with respect to the group (identity politics being an instance of this class that that is inherited by all groups with a degree of internal diversity sufficient to build multiple coalitions behind). [0] https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

m463 7y ago

I'm reminded of the saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

adrianmonk 7y ago

> I don't know what the right solution is. This is a bit of a wild theory, which I definitely can't prove, but I am tempted to blame part of it on "zero tolerance" schools. Schools are meant to teach the material, but they're also meant to give students practice at working within a social framework. Being on time, speaking in turn, keeping track of assignments, relating to peers, etc. People have a lot of opinions on that, but the point is, it's reality. Kids are definitely picking up from schools an idea of what is normal when it comes to how social groups work. Before zero tolerance, when someone did something wrong, the normal way to handle it was to try to understand both sides, then exercise the discretion given to people in a position of authority, then make a judgment call that seemed fair, reasonable, and proportionate. But now the normal way to handle situations is to more or less unconditionally penalize the offender without any leeway being given. So now we have a whole generation or so of people who grew up having that style of authority modeled for them. When it comes time for them to exercise authority, what are they going to do but what they learned by example? If this wild theory is right, then a (long-term) answer is for schools to stop teaching our kids that this is how society should work.

zozbot234 7y ago
Authoritarianism in schools is very old; it definitely didn't begin with what are now called "zero tolerance" policies. I'm pretty sure we would have noticed if attending an authoritarian school gave you an authoritarian personality style, especially given the interest in the latter in post-WW2 psych studies.
- catalogia 7y ago
  > I'm pretty sure we would have noticed if attending an authoritarian school gave you an authoritarian personality style Wasn't it noticed though? Paddling students fell out of favor decades ago, in no small part I suspect because people began to realize that hitting kids wasn't teaching kids how to resolve conflicts effectively. The status quo before 'zero tolerance' was itself a radical departure from what came before it.
- cookiecaper 7y ago