4 ms·

Because I have reason to believe I would be harassed for asking for evidence for the claims that Andrew tried to control the network prior to his access revocat

Because I have reason to believe I would be harassed for asking for evidence for the claims that Andrew tried to control the network prior to his access revocation. Look around: there are multiple news articles on the subject and all of them take the hostile takeover perspective as gospel. People have already decided Andrew controls a corporation with evil intentions. In this case, I was pointing out factual mistakes that could eventually paint a different narrative. Despite seeing waves of upvotes and downvotes, no one has offered any piece of evidence backing their claims: The article implies Freenode Limited was incorporated for the sole reason to be sold to Andrew. Evidence for this angle? None so far, instead it looks like Christel is the one who incorporated and months later actively sought an acquisition. There are Companies House records for the incorporation, and Andrew provided the email showing Christel coming to him. The article implies Andrew escalated the debacle by asserting his authority over the reorganization. Reality? They conveniently did not mention staff asked Andrew to sign over the domain, then consequently Andrew was locked out and the staff announced a reorganization with partnership with OFTC. Andrew mistakenly sees this as a coup and fights back. While staff was acting in good faith, so was Andrew. Evidence of ill intention? None. Evidence of a single instance where Andrew tried to intervene in the network affairs from 2012 to 2021? None as well. The article implies Libera Chat was created after Andrew fully took over. Reality? It was created right after the lawyer tried to restore Andrew's access. This implies they were ready to move regardless of Andrew's actions. And that's fine, I too support a community-owned network as opposed to a company-owned one. However, if their bylaws were written prior to any actual takeover, why are they trying to portray Andrew as the active actor that prompted Libera Chat's creation? And lastly, the only thing that's blatantly clear is that Christel backstabbed every single one of them. Yet, Andrew's face is plastered everywhere as the villain. He might be a douchebag, but you have to be disingenuous to refuse to provide evidence to support your narrative and question why I wouldn't share my real name along with facts I provided evidence for [1]. Once again, I too will demonize Andrew as soon as evidence of him interfering with the network affairs since 2012 is provided. Pretty please? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27250514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27250514

djao 5y ago
This is absurd. The timeline is irrelevant. Andrew is committing gross abuse of power. Regardless of why or how such abuse is "justified", the abuse in and of itself is reason to leave the network.
- hn-detective 5y ago
  If you look into my other comments, I've always stated there was reason to leave the network the moment it became privately-owned. I also never expected Andrew to do the right thing as an operator. I also never defended his gross abuse of power after the network was in his hands. I was trying to find the actual events because there's no indication this was planned, as opposed to what people are saying. If you're fine with articles misrepresenting reality to further the idea that someone intentionally set out to do something bad, that's okay. I'm not. There is enough evidence that Libera Chat would be the preferred network and that Andrew is doing an absolute whack job of running the network afterwards, they didn't need to omit facts and imply Andrew was the driving force for the incorporation. This discussion happened before the hostile takeover of channels. The fact the hostile takeover of channels happened doesn't affect whether or not the network takeover was intentional or not, and doesn't affect whether the transition could have been easier after finding out the community didn't own it had they not confronted Andrew as a thief first, despicable human being second.

djao 5y ago

This is absurd. The timeline is irrelevant. Andrew is committing gross abuse of power. Regardless of why or how such abuse is "justified", the abuse in and of itself is reason to leave the network.

hn-detective 5y ago
If you look into my other comments, I've always stated there was reason to leave the network the moment it became privately-owned. I also never expected Andrew to do the right thing as an operator. I also never defended his gross abuse of power after the network was in his hands. I was trying to find the actual events because there's no indication this was planned, as opposed to what people are saying. If you're fine with articles misrepresenting reality to further the idea that someone intentionally set out to do something bad, that's okay. I'm not. There is enough evidence that Libera Chat would be the preferred network and that Andrew is doing an absolute whack job of running the network afterwards, they didn't need to omit facts and imply Andrew was the driving force for the incorporation. This discussion happened before the hostile takeover of channels. The fact the hostile takeover of channels happened doesn't affect whether or not the network takeover was intentional or not, and doesn't affect whether the transition could have been easier after finding out the community didn't own it had they not confronted Andrew as a thief first, despicable human being second.