5 ms·

Are you arguing that FSF should deliberately disregard social issues to be different? Do social issues waste valuable care that could be spent caring free softw

Are you arguing that FSF should deliberately disregard social issues to be different? Do social issues waste valuable care that could be spent caring free software? Or is there another reason to be frustrated by people caring about the social impact of their organization?

csande17 4y ago
I don't think the FSF should do anything just to be different. But I think it's a good idea for different organizations to work to improve the world in different ways. The FSF should focus on its core mission, and they should leave space for other organizations to focus on other issues.
- xbar 4y ago
  Agreed. It seems to me that ensuring the freedom of free software addresses a fundamental social issue that without RMS never would have been met and could have been lost several times along the way. I see a lot of references to getting with the times and modernity in the complaints against RMS. I don't see much in the way of complaint that GNU is insufficiently free-as-in-freedom, which is the only thing I really want out of GNU.
bheadmaster 4y ago
Free Software Foundation deals with the issue of software freedom. Not diabetes, not the poor children in Africa, not child slavery in China, not social justice - just software freedom. If they start caring about other issues unrelated to software freedom, they would have to divert their resources from the issues of software freedom to something else. Demanding they care about other issues is demanding they care less about software freedom, as their resources are limited, naturally.
- blep_ 4y ago
  There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. It's the difference between "we're not actively campaigning for improvements around climate change because that's not our thing" (morally neutral, probably) and "unlimited free intercontinental supersonic jet flights around the world for people who license their work under the GPL" (may encourage GPL usage but at a high cost in pollution). (Controversial thread disclaimer: this is a counterargument solely to your comment, and not an expression of any particular opinion outside of what I explicitly wrote here.)
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. To make such an argument, you first have to demonstrate how exactly is FSF making other things worse. Of course, "not doing anything to help X" is not the same as "actively making X worse".
    - ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
      You don't have to be an activist just because you give a damn. Being a good citizen in the world means caring enough about other people to not trample them. Not caring simply means not bothering to check if you're stepping on people and not changing course once you found out that you have. For example, having a spokesperson who some people actually listen to publicly question whether a very young woman coerced by Jeffrey Epstein into having sex with his friend can justifiably say she was "assaulted." If he actually cared as much about his social impact as his friend's justifiably ruined reputation, he'd have just shut his mouth at the very least. If you think that's an unreasonable expectation then that's just sad.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        How exactly does RMS voicing his thoughts and opinions make anything worse? You mention the phrase "stepping on people". What exactly do you mean by that - both in general, and in the specific case you've mentioned? Do you mean that people don't like his words, and he's figuratively "stepping on them" by expressing his thoughts? Because it seems to me that the only argument against him is that "some people don't like his words". If there is anything more to it, I'd really like to know.
        ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
        Do you think the court of public opinion is consequential? If not, why did he make those public statements in support of his friend? The accusation is almost certainly true, and a public figure publicly casting doubt upon and minimizing the woman's claims is consequential. If he was talking privately among friends or some random person whose words had no more influence than the next person, then who gives a shit. That's not the case.
- int_19h 4y ago
  If that is the case, then what was the point of the preachy abort() joke, and why did Stallman insist so much on keeping it?
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you're talking about. Please bring forward the link to a page containing the joke, so we can be on the same page before continuing this discussion.

csande17 4y ago

I don't think the FSF should do anything just to be different. But I think it's a good idea for different organizations to work to improve the world in different ways. The FSF should focus on its core mission, and they should leave space for other organizations to focus on other issues.

xbar 4y ago
Agreed. It seems to me that ensuring the freedom of free software addresses a fundamental social issue that without RMS never would have been met and could have been lost several times along the way. I see a lot of references to getting with the times and modernity in the complaints against RMS. I don't see much in the way of complaint that GNU is insufficiently free-as-in-freedom, which is the only thing I really want out of GNU.

bheadmaster 4y ago

Free Software Foundation deals with the issue of software freedom. Not diabetes, not the poor children in Africa, not child slavery in China, not social justice - just software freedom. If they start caring about other issues unrelated to software freedom, they would have to divert their resources from the issues of software freedom to something else. Demanding they care about other issues is demanding they care less about software freedom, as their resources are limited, naturally.

blep_ 4y ago
There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. It's the difference between "we're not actively campaigning for improvements around climate change because that's not our thing" (morally neutral, probably) and "unlimited free intercontinental supersonic jet flights around the world for people who license their work under the GPL" (may encourage GPL usage but at a high cost in pollution). (Controversial thread disclaimer: this is a counterargument solely to your comment, and not an expression of any particular opinion outside of what I explicitly wrote here.)
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. To make such an argument, you first have to demonstrate how exactly is FSF making other things worse. Of course, "not doing anything to help X" is not the same as "actively making X worse".
  - ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
    You don't have to be an activist just because you give a damn. Being a good citizen in the world means caring enough about other people to not trample them. Not caring simply means not bothering to check if you're stepping on people and not changing course once you found out that you have. For example, having a spokesperson who some people actually listen to publicly question whether a very young woman coerced by Jeffrey Epstein into having sex with his friend can justifiably say she was "assaulted." If he actually cared as much about his social impact as his friend's justifiably ruined reputation, he'd have just shut his mouth at the very least. If you think that's an unreasonable expectation then that's just sad.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      How exactly does RMS voicing his thoughts and opinions make anything worse? You mention the phrase "stepping on people". What exactly do you mean by that - both in general, and in the specific case you've mentioned? Do you mean that people don't like his words, and he's figuratively "stepping on them" by expressing his thoughts? Because it seems to me that the only argument against him is that "some people don't like his words". If there is anything more to it, I'd really like to know.
      - ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
        Do you think the court of public opinion is consequential? If not, why did he make those public statements in support of his friend? The accusation is almost certainly true, and a public figure publicly casting doubt upon and minimizing the woman's claims is consequential. If he was talking privately among friends or some random person whose words had no more influence than the next person, then who gives a shit. That's not the case.
int_19h 4y ago
If that is the case, then what was the point of the preachy abort() joke, and why did Stallman insist so much on keeping it?
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  I'm not sure what you're talking about. Please bring forward the link to a page containing the joke, so we can be on the same page before continuing this discussion.