3 ms·

Pre-judging an article without even reading it doesn't feel like the HN way (it would be interesting to know what percentage of HN readers would comment on an a

by zh3 4y ago

Pre-judging an article without even reading it doesn't feel like the HN way (it would be interesting to know what percentage of HN readers would comment on an article they haven't read). Personally, I do think he has a point. Agreed, he may make it repeatedly - in somewhat different ways - but none the less, I have sympathy for his point of view. I am sick to the back teeth of having control of my own computer being slowly taken away from me, one finger at a time.

californiadreem 4y ago
I totally sympathize with the viewpoint. My contention is that monetizing that viewpoint acts as a pressure release that personally enriches Cory Doctorow and his publishers at the expense of actual effective action to avert the disaster. This is the same argument that I levy at professional "effective altruists"--if you're profiting by and not subsidizing altuism (i.e. comparable net worth to those you're helping), you're by definition not an altruist, you're a symbiont at best and a parasite at worst. RMS is an impotent (and some would say toxic) emissary for open software and hardware, but at least his principles directly align with his lifestyle. No one is being ferried into nascent manipulative technologies because of their supposedly "revolutionary" potential on his account.
- OrwellianChild 4y ago
  Earnest question: Is your opinion that writing books and selling them is a bad form of advocacy? Is there a better one that doesn't require independent wealth? I'm pretty familiar with Doctorow's body of work, and he writes freely for magazines, comes on podcasts, speaks at Defcon, and generally lives in service of the ideas that are articulated in his books. Part of advocacy requires messaging the same ideas over and over in different ways, since each person will be converted by a slightly different equation of messaging and delivery. I'm not sure I can agree with the nihilistic cynicism that rejects all text that has profit potential.

by zh3 4y ago

californiadreem 4y ago

I totally sympathize with the viewpoint. My contention is that monetizing that viewpoint acts as a pressure release that personally enriches Cory Doctorow and his publishers at the expense of actual effective action to avert the disaster. This is the same argument that I levy at professional "effective altruists"--if you're profiting by and not subsidizing altuism (i.e. comparable net worth to those you're helping), you're by definition not an altruist, you're a symbiont at best and a parasite at worst. RMS is an impotent (and some would say toxic) emissary for open software and hardware, but at least his principles directly align with his lifestyle. No one is being ferried into nascent manipulative technologies because of their supposedly "revolutionary" potential on his account.

OrwellianChild 4y ago
Earnest question: Is your opinion that writing books and selling them is a bad form of advocacy? Is there a better one that doesn't require independent wealth? I'm pretty familiar with Doctorow's body of work, and he writes freely for magazines, comes on podcasts, speaks at Defcon, and generally lives in service of the ideas that are articulated in his books. Part of advocacy requires messaging the same ideas over and over in different ways, since each person will be converted by a slightly different equation of messaging and delivery. I'm not sure I can agree with the nihilistic cynicism that rejects all text that has profit potential.