3 ms·

> keeping the FSF closely associated with the Epstein scandal So orgs should pander to misinformation?

by Chris2048 6y ago

vineyardmike 6y ago
The he said/she said of RMS and Epstein scandal “misinformation” doesn’t need to be clarified. RMS said some questionable things (to some people). The corrected version is still questionable (to some smaller subset of people). This Epstein thing is not the only questionable thing he’s done/said. He’s a liability regardless of the truth, because the truth does not exonerate him. The FSF is an advocacy org and you can’t advocate well for a moral position (free software) if your main advocate is ensnared in scandal over morally questionable behavior, regardless of the truth. The FSF first now has to advocate for the morality of RMS to clear his name enough that he can advocate for the morality something else and have enough people listen. Frankly, his track record beyond the Epstein mess was already dubious, so it’s a losing battle.
- vinceguidry 6y ago
  So what only Captain America can be an advocate now?
- Chris2048 6y ago
  You mentioned Epstein specifically so that's what I'm responding too. What does it mean to be "questionable"? controversial? wrong? That the earth is round is questionable (to some smaller subset of people) - that doesn't change the fact that the RMS was misrepresented (without scare-quotes) - the truth of his actual comments wrt Minsky do 100% exonerate him - that a subset of people don't agree is irrelevant.
  - vineyardmike 6y ago
    Questionable is that some significant group of people might not be ready to support or condone the views. The fact that its still in discussion means that even with his "exoneration" he's still not viewed positively. He's viewed so negatively that this Epstein thing (which he is not exonerated entirely imo) is not the only reason to distance from him.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      Sure, because of misinformation. A significant number of people may hold an insignificant view; a significant number of people don't wear facemasks either.

> keeping the FSF closely associated with the Epstein scandal So orgs should pander to misinformation?

The he said/she said of RMS and Epstein scandal “misinformation” doesn’t need to be clarified. RMS said some questionable things (to some people). The corrected version is still questionable (to some smaller subset of people). This Epstein thing is not the only questionable thing he’s done/said. He’s a liability regardless of the truth, because the truth does not exonerate him. The FSF is an advocacy org and you can’t advocate well for a moral position (free software) if your main advocate is ensnared in scandal over morally questionable behavior, regardless of the truth. The FSF first now has to advocate for the morality of RMS to clear his name enough that he can advocate for the morality something else and have enough people listen. Frankly, his track record beyond the Epstein mess was already dubious, so it’s a losing battle.

vinceguidry 6y ago
So what only Captain America can be an advocate now?
Chris2048 6y ago
You mentioned Epstein specifically so that's what I'm responding too. What does it mean to be "questionable"? controversial? wrong? That the earth is round is questionable (to some smaller subset of people) - that doesn't change the fact that the RMS was misrepresented (without scare-quotes) - the truth of his actual comments wrt Minsky do 100% exonerate him - that a subset of people don't agree is irrelevant.
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  Questionable is that some significant group of people might not be ready to support or condone the views. The fact that its still in discussion means that even with his "exoneration" he's still not viewed positively. He's viewed so negatively that this Epstein thing (which he is not exonerated entirely imo) is not the only reason to distance from him.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    Sure, because of misinformation. A significant number of people may hold an insignificant view; a significant number of people don't wear facemasks either.