5 ms·

We’d all be a hell of a lot better off if your camp didn’t casually and routinely believe that failure to contact FSF or advocate for Tor is evidence of a consp

We’d all be a hell of a lot better off if your camp didn’t casually and routinely believe that failure to contact FSF or advocate for Tor is evidence of a conspiracy against computing. I swear free software people have a really great idea and philosophy and absolute garbage ideas of how to promote the idea and convince disagreeing viewpoints. We badly need to start coming around to the seemingly-crazy understanding that there’s a huge middle ground between where you are and would prefer us to be, and unfettered, apocalyptic corporate exploitation dooming us all. It’s tiring to live this Sith existence that free software people push: “with us or conspiring against.” And we all know it’s RMS who sets that tone and has inspired all of you to religious battle. The problem is you’re showing up to battle with civilians most of the time, including here, in this thread, right now. You mention nearby that you didn’t mean for this post to come off as blaming the consumer. That’s weird, because typically when I’m blaming someone for something, I use adjectives like “myopic”, “apathetic”, and “willful” to describe their behavior that I find disagreeable. Your entire post is blaming the very people you’re trying to convince; when called on it, you quickly rush in with oh no, not blaming the consumer, and not even blaming Google (!?). > That’s why they get comments from an establishment Harvard professor, and not the FSF. How do you think this conversation goes? Is it something like this? “The people are dangerously close to understanding true freedom. We cannot have that and we must convince them that Google policing is in their best interest. If we call FSF that’s what they’re going to tell us, so we absolutely can’t do that. Let’s call the safe option at Harvard.” Because (former investigative journalist here) it isn’t. The conversation you’re annoyed about actually goes like this: “The last five hundred times we tried the FSF we got lectured about why our computing choices suck and we make bad decisions about using computers. Let’s go to a person we’ve worked with before who is able to break this down in a way that I, and my readers, will understand. Bonus: I don’t have to Google why forgetting ‘GNU/‘ in the last article destroyed my comment section.” It’s so weird and depressing because everybody in free software is brilliant, for the most part, but just can’t see how alienating and frustrating this kind of thing is for the majority of people who aren’t them.

fartcannon 4y ago
You kind of have a baby/bathwater situation, eh? You'd throw the baby out just because the bathwater has a lot of evangelists you personally find unpleasant to communicate with. Doesn't seem to matter that they're fighting for _your rights_ just that you don't like them. I guess your post directly leads to OP's post in that sense, because my first thought after reading yours was, "you reap what you sow" which is more or less what OP wrote. So maybe we'd be a hell of a lot better off without your attitude?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  What OP is saying is that the brilliant people churning ideas and insights within FSF, are terrible at advocating for it. I agree. As an example: FSF points about free (as in liberty) hardware was years ahead of its time; yet it wasn’t taken very seriously until MS push for UEFI. The work of getting the message out on the important points is better left to others.
  - fartcannon 4y ago
    Yes, thank you for elaborating, but I did understand their point. The issue is that OP hasn't thought far enough ahead (or doesn't care) and as a result, as GP and myself have now said, a situation where you reap what you sow occurs. Let me elaborate now: The people who are willing to get the message out about FSF ideals are currently the people who are doing it. So unless OP or yourself can provide the means to do that better than what is being done now, what you get is what there is right now. So then, if at that point, you hear about a good idea (like what the FSF fights for) but turn away from it (throwing out the baby) because you don't like the source of that idea, then, as was already said, you reap what you sow.
    - thallamus2 4y ago
zmgsabst 4y ago
My experience is that journalists do the first using the vocabulary of the second: They phrase objections to viewpoints and ideas that are forbidden in the language of decorum, so they can claim to be upholding propriety and good society rather than censorship. That attitude (and your post) are why trust in media has collapsed — you’re no longer doing the hard work of bringing us the fire of truth, you’re just having a pleasant chat with your friends.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
leereeves 4y ago
While I agree with some of what you said about the free software community, I think you're ignoring GP's larger point, and somewhat derailing the conversation by focusing too much on one sentence of a long comment. Perhaps you could post a substantive rebuttal to the heart of GP's comment: > they remain willfully blind to other threats ... > The problem is that would give users actual power and autonomy. But what the authors really want is for Google and other corporations to keep acting as internet police, but only enforcing rules they agree with, and not any others. In other words, what about broader issues with censorship, surveillance, and corporate control of the Internet outside the context of abortion?
- thallamus 4y ago
  I didn’t rebut either of your quotes because they’re both ascribing intent to the actions of others with very limited information. I’d be rebutting their interpretation of events, not the events (and I’d also be doing it with the same limited information). I also think the broader point is more important.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Fair enough, those claims could use some evidence. The author of this article once wrote: > As more of the Internet permeated our lives, so has the expectation that tech companies share a responsibility for content that’s akin to food companies’ responsibility for public health. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-moderation-tech-stack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-... It seems fair to characterize that as believing that "Google and other corporations [should] keep acting as internet police".
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      It could also mean that they share responsibility because of their lobbying efforts. Laws could have been enacted a long time ago and surveillance expectations could have remained strongly on individual privacy instead of fighting like: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 Or https://thehill.com/policy/technology/407528-fight-looms-over-national-privacy-law/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/407528-fight-looms-ove...
AinderS 4y ago
> Let’s go to a person we’ve worked with before who is able to break this down in a way that I, and my readers, will understand. That will have an anemic opinion that is close to your own, and works for an institution that is as establishment as they come [1]. How can you "speak truth to power" when you get your commentary and opinions from one of the seats of that power? [1] Eight of the nine members of the current [supreme] court went to law school at either Harvard or Yale. - https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/supreme-court-covered-ivy-lawmakers-82596061 https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/supreme-court-cov...
- thallamus 4y ago
  I’d love to respond substantively on this topic, but every followup I’ve written so far in this thread has been immediately flagged, so I’m not inclined to risk the time. (I’m sorry for that. That’s not your fault.) I could fly off on a tangent about how that’s a conspiracy to suppress my view, but I think it’s more productive to look at that as a misunderstanding of the role of the “flag” button. Maybe that’s my substantive response I’d leave you with: when presented with opportunity to presume the worst in people, find the middle if you can?

fartcannon 4y ago

You kind of have a baby/bathwater situation, eh? You'd throw the baby out just because the bathwater has a lot of evangelists you personally find unpleasant to communicate with. Doesn't seem to matter that they're fighting for _your rights_ just that you don't like them. I guess your post directly leads to OP's post in that sense, because my first thought after reading yours was, "you reap what you sow" which is more or less what OP wrote. So maybe we'd be a hell of a lot better off without your attitude?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nobodyandproud 4y ago
What OP is saying is that the brilliant people churning ideas and insights within FSF, are terrible at advocating for it. I agree. As an example: FSF points about free (as in liberty) hardware was years ahead of its time; yet it wasn’t taken very seriously until MS push for UEFI. The work of getting the message out on the important points is better left to others.
- fartcannon 4y ago
  Yes, thank you for elaborating, but I did understand their point. The issue is that OP hasn't thought far enough ahead (or doesn't care) and as a result, as GP and myself have now said, a situation where you reap what you sow occurs. Let me elaborate now: The people who are willing to get the message out about FSF ideals are currently the people who are doing it. So unless OP or yourself can provide the means to do that better than what is being done now, what you get is what there is right now. So then, if at that point, you hear about a good idea (like what the FSF fights for) but turn away from it (throwing out the baby) because you don't like the source of that idea, then, as was already said, you reap what you sow.
  - thallamus2 4y ago

zmgsabst 4y ago

My experience is that journalists do the first using the vocabulary of the second: They phrase objections to viewpoints and ideas that are forbidden in the language of decorum, so they can claim to be upholding propriety and good society rather than censorship. That attitude (and your post) are why trust in media has collapsed — you’re no longer doing the hard work of bringing us the fire of truth, you’re just having a pleasant chat with your friends.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

leereeves 4y ago

While I agree with some of what you said about the free software community, I think you're ignoring GP's larger point, and somewhat derailing the conversation by focusing too much on one sentence of a long comment. Perhaps you could post a substantive rebuttal to the heart of GP's comment: > they remain willfully blind to other threats ... > The problem is that would give users actual power and autonomy. But what the authors really want is for Google and other corporations to keep acting as internet police, but only enforcing rules they agree with, and not any others. In other words, what about broader issues with censorship, surveillance, and corporate control of the Internet outside the context of abortion?

thallamus 4y ago
I didn’t rebut either of your quotes because they’re both ascribing intent to the actions of others with very limited information. I’d be rebutting their interpretation of events, not the events (and I’d also be doing it with the same limited information). I also think the broader point is more important.
- leereeves 4y ago
  Fair enough, those claims could use some evidence. The author of this article once wrote: > As more of the Internet permeated our lives, so has the expectation that tech companies share a responsibility for content that’s akin to food companies’ responsibility for public health. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-moderation-tech-stack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-... It seems fair to characterize that as believing that "Google and other corporations [should] keep acting as internet police".
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    It could also mean that they share responsibility because of their lobbying efforts. Laws could have been enacted a long time ago and surveillance expectations could have remained strongly on individual privacy instead of fighting like: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 Or https://thehill.com/policy/technology/407528-fight-looms-over-national-privacy-law/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/407528-fight-looms-ove...

AinderS 4y ago

> Let’s go to a person we’ve worked with before who is able to break this down in a way that I, and my readers, will understand. That will have an anemic opinion that is close to your own, and works for an institution that is as establishment as they come [1]. How can you "speak truth to power" when you get your commentary and opinions from one of the seats of that power? [1] Eight of the nine members of the current [supreme] court went to law school at either Harvard or Yale. - https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/supreme-court-covered-ivy-lawmakers-82596061 https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/supreme-court-cov...

thallamus 4y ago
I’d love to respond substantively on this topic, but every followup I’ve written so far in this thread has been immediately flagged, so I’m not inclined to risk the time. (I’m sorry for that. That’s not your fault.) I could fly off on a tangent about how that’s a conspiracy to suppress my view, but I think it’s more productive to look at that as a misunderstanding of the role of the “flag” button. Maybe that’s my substantive response I’d leave you with: when presented with opportunity to presume the worst in people, find the middle if you can?