4 ms·

This is an indescribably devastating loss for a project that, whatever its imperfections, can fairly lay claim to the most intellectually consistent and sincere

This is an indescribably devastating loss for a project that, whatever its imperfections, can fairly lay claim to the most intellectually consistent and sincere adherence to FOSS, privacy, and decentralization of any major social media project. Eugene has proven a spectacular and indispensable developer, and I don't know that Mastodon has the ability to move on without him. I want to praise Eugen but the uncomfortable truth is I think Mastodon as a project may not recover from losing him. Though I hope to be proven wrong.

bfkwlfkjf 11mo ago
Even Stallman signed up. Let that sink in.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- thekid314 11mo ago
  I met Stallman once when he was pamphleting outside a beloved book store because they were using meetup to organize a book signing. The guy is consistent.
  - grepfru_it 11mo ago
    I used to make so much fun of RMS in the late 90s. Then I met him and my entire view on that man changed. He absolutely is doing the world a favor and it would benefit everyone to think long and hard what a world would be like without GNU today
    - trinsic2 11mo ago
      [flagged]
    - almosthere 11mo ago
      [flagged]
      - mothballed 11mo ago
        Can't beleive Epstein debacle ruined even rms. That guy's tentacles were everywhere.
        krapp 11mo ago
        It didn't ruin RMS at all. He was momentarily cancelled then welcomed back to the FSF. He was blogging passionately about his pro-pedophilia views for years. His supporters literally couldn't have cared less, and rather swore a blood oath of vengeance against the people who called him out. I'm actually struggling to think of anyone who has suffered negative consequences over Epstein, besides Epstein himself. Even Ghislane is being treated like royalty in prison. Trump seems untouchable. Prince Andrew lost a purely decorative title and was banished to a slightly smaller mansion.
        nullhole 11mo ago
        He's blogged for years, writing a number of short 1 or 2 sentence notes daily, on a very wide range of topics, taking positions on each of them from a lefty and analytical point of view, generally covering various political/environmental/economic/legal topics. And, for what it's worth, he recanted the statement he made that was posted above.
        krapp 11mo ago
        >taking positions on each of them from a lefty and analytical point of view, generally covering various political/environmental/economic/legal topics. He didn't take a lofty and analytical view on sex with children. Read his other posts, he was upset that there were societal norms and laws against it. He cared about this. >And, for what it's worth, he recanted the statement he made that was posted above. As far as I'm aware only once, almost as an afterthought, in a brief statement when the Minsky stuff was blowing up, likely under duress from someone at MIT desperate for him to put out the fire his at best awkward comments on Minsky set alight. He's probably put more effort into ordering a meal than he did recanting his views on pedophilia. Which again he held for years, in public view, without consequence. So he didn't even need to go that far because none of it even touched him.
    - stackghost 11mo ago
      [flagged]
      - LexiMax 11mo ago
        I don't think you even need to go as far as his interpersonal skills. IMHO The fact that the GPLv3 (not the AGPLv3) didn't close the network hole should've been proof enough. If you care about user freedom, the fact that the GPL isn't viral across the network is such an obvious gaping hole at its center, one that was well known by the late 2000's. Yet through myopia or appeasement, he decided to leave it to the AGPL to solve, and the GPLv3 ended up as a license that still ticked off enough people for them to not upgrade, yet with a gigantic backdoor built-in that allows trivial circumvention of user freedoms.
    - roenxi 11mo ago
      He's also an interesting study in having principles - a purist approach is rare, honestly confusing to most people and actually rather effective in a Cassandra-style way if watched closely. Quite effective in terms of outcomes too, it's really deceptive how much of an impact he managed to have because the part of the brain that judges success and failure seems to key off charisma and social proof rather than doing a technically outcomes-vs-intent comparison.
      - raxxorraxor 11mo ago
        A few years ago there were some "personalities" that very much agitated against Stallman. Without generalizing too much it is these people you probably should keep a very, very large distance to. Toxic is likely an understatement.
        LexiMax 11mo ago
        An easy position to take when you have assurances that dissenting voices in this thread will have their rebuttals censored.
        wpietri 11mo ago
        Oh, please. This sort of anonymous, hopelessly vague character assassination does not belong on HN. You have of course given no idea of which people you're objecting to. But the people I know who were upset at Stallman a few years ago had clear, specific concerns, and some of them were directly harmed by Stallman. If you would like to rebut their complaints, feel free to give it a go. Or you could also claim that the harm caused was justified or excusable given the positive things he's done. But you have to actually make the case, rather than just smearing them like this.
        raxxorraxor 11mo ago
        I do think this belongs on HN as a topic. This isn't a character assassination since I didn't name anyone. Quite the contrary, the character assassination was directed against Stallman and it was based on toxic slender and rumors and it even lead to consequences. If someone does feel addressed by my comment, I welcome that of course and perhaps it will lead to some self-reflection because I want to underline that it is strong criticism.
- mghackerlady 11mo ago
  It was one of his assistants that signed him up. Pedantic but he himself has never actually used it
  - mikem170 11mo ago
    Correct, as per the Social Media section on his How I Do My Computing page: > I have a Mastodon account, @rms on mastodon.xyz, which mirrors the political notes of stallman.org. The person who set up the mirroring chose that site. [1] The same document also says he has a similar Twitter account called rmspostcomments, that he doesn't use himself either. [1] https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
darig 11mo ago
[dead]
bigyabai 11mo ago
I think Mastodon will survive. Other fedi projects (eg. Pleroma-fe) have been through all nine circles of FOSS hell and somehow still ship usable builds to a sizable community. Eugen's presence is felt and appreciated in the community, but I can also understand why he stepped down. It's hard to represent so many people who don't always agree with you. I think back to Jack Dorsey's final days at Twitter with the NFT profile pictures and crypto tickers - he truly did not understand that his leadership had passed it's prime. The honorable thing for him to do was pass on control to someone responsible, but instead he spent his final days polarizing Twitter and guaranteeing it's own critical insolvency. Eugen took the honorable route - I hope he remains vocal and influential in the community. It sounds like he knows himself extremely well and I applaud his honesty about the temptation for ego to ruin big projects. Most of us can't imagine the pressure in his shoes.
benatkin 11mo ago
I happen to be inclined to agree with what the post says. First it leads with a similing mastodon with hearts. Later on it says "I’m also aware that my aversion to public appearances cost Mastodon some opportunities in publicity." I'm sad about part of the reason why he decided to transition away from being CEO, not that he's decided to transition away from being CEO, and I'm optimistic about Mastodon.
mperham 11mo ago
He's stepping down as CEO. He'll still contribute. Most gifted technical people are not strong organizational leaders so it's mature to recognize your own limits and find someone else who can fill that role.
glenstein 11mo ago
Eugen*

bfkwlfkjf 11mo ago

Even Stallman signed up. Let that sink in.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
thekid314 11mo ago
I met Stallman once when he was pamphleting outside a beloved book store because they were using meetup to organize a book signing. The guy is consistent.
- grepfru_it 11mo ago
  I used to make so much fun of RMS in the late 90s. Then I met him and my entire view on that man changed. He absolutely is doing the world a favor and it would benefit everyone to think long and hard what a world would be like without GNU today
  - trinsic2 11mo ago
    [flagged]
  - almosthere 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mothballed 11mo ago
      Can't beleive Epstein debacle ruined even rms. That guy's tentacles were everywhere.
      - krapp 11mo ago
        It didn't ruin RMS at all. He was momentarily cancelled then welcomed back to the FSF. He was blogging passionately about his pro-pedophilia views for years. His supporters literally couldn't have cared less, and rather swore a blood oath of vengeance against the people who called him out. I'm actually struggling to think of anyone who has suffered negative consequences over Epstein, besides Epstein himself. Even Ghislane is being treated like royalty in prison. Trump seems untouchable. Prince Andrew lost a purely decorative title and was banished to a slightly smaller mansion.
        nullhole 11mo ago
        He's blogged for years, writing a number of short 1 or 2 sentence notes daily, on a very wide range of topics, taking positions on each of them from a lefty and analytical point of view, generally covering various political/environmental/economic/legal topics. And, for what it's worth, he recanted the statement he made that was posted above.
        krapp 11mo ago
        >taking positions on each of them from a lefty and analytical point of view, generally covering various political/environmental/economic/legal topics. He didn't take a lofty and analytical view on sex with children. Read his other posts, he was upset that there were societal norms and laws against it. He cared about this. >And, for what it's worth, he recanted the statement he made that was posted above. As far as I'm aware only once, almost as an afterthought, in a brief statement when the Minsky stuff was blowing up, likely under duress from someone at MIT desperate for him to put out the fire his at best awkward comments on Minsky set alight. He's probably put more effort into ordering a meal than he did recanting his views on pedophilia. Which again he held for years, in public view, without consequence. So he didn't even need to go that far because none of it even touched him.
  - stackghost 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - LexiMax 11mo ago
      I don't think you even need to go as far as his interpersonal skills. IMHO The fact that the GPLv3 (not the AGPLv3) didn't close the network hole should've been proof enough. If you care about user freedom, the fact that the GPL isn't viral across the network is such an obvious gaping hole at its center, one that was well known by the late 2000's. Yet through myopia or appeasement, he decided to leave it to the AGPL to solve, and the GPLv3 ended up as a license that still ticked off enough people for them to not upgrade, yet with a gigantic backdoor built-in that allows trivial circumvention of user freedoms.
  - roenxi 11mo ago
    He's also an interesting study in having principles - a purist approach is rare, honestly confusing to most people and actually rather effective in a Cassandra-style way if watched closely. Quite effective in terms of outcomes too, it's really deceptive how much of an impact he managed to have because the part of the brain that judges success and failure seems to key off charisma and social proof rather than doing a technically outcomes-vs-intent comparison.
    - raxxorraxor 11mo ago
      A few years ago there were some "personalities" that very much agitated against Stallman. Without generalizing too much it is these people you probably should keep a very, very large distance to. Toxic is likely an understatement.
      - LexiMax 11mo ago
        An easy position to take when you have assurances that dissenting voices in this thread will have their rebuttals censored.
      - wpietri 11mo ago
        Oh, please. This sort of anonymous, hopelessly vague character assassination does not belong on HN. You have of course given no idea of which people you're objecting to. But the people I know who were upset at Stallman a few years ago had clear, specific concerns, and some of them were directly harmed by Stallman. If you would like to rebut their complaints, feel free to give it a go. Or you could also claim that the harm caused was justified or excusable given the positive things he's done. But you have to actually make the case, rather than just smearing them like this.
        raxxorraxor 11mo ago
        I do think this belongs on HN as a topic. This isn't a character assassination since I didn't name anyone. Quite the contrary, the character assassination was directed against Stallman and it was based on toxic slender and rumors and it even lead to consequences. If someone does feel addressed by my comment, I welcome that of course and perhaps it will lead to some self-reflection because I want to underline that it is strong criticism.
mghackerlady 11mo ago
It was one of his assistants that signed him up. Pedantic but he himself has never actually used it
- mikem170 11mo ago
  Correct, as per the Social Media section on his How I Do My Computing page: > I have a Mastodon account, @rms on mastodon.xyz, which mirrors the political notes of stallman.org. The person who set up the mirroring chose that site. [1] The same document also says he has a similar Twitter account called rmspostcomments, that he doesn't use himself either. [1] https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

darig 11mo ago

[dead]

bigyabai 11mo ago

I think Mastodon will survive. Other fedi projects (eg. Pleroma-fe) have been through all nine circles of FOSS hell and somehow still ship usable builds to a sizable community. Eugen's presence is felt and appreciated in the community, but I can also understand why he stepped down. It's hard to represent so many people who don't always agree with you. I think back to Jack Dorsey's final days at Twitter with the NFT profile pictures and crypto tickers - he truly did not understand that his leadership had passed it's prime. The honorable thing for him to do was pass on control to someone responsible, but instead he spent his final days polarizing Twitter and guaranteeing it's own critical insolvency. Eugen took the honorable route - I hope he remains vocal and influential in the community. It sounds like he knows himself extremely well and I applaud his honesty about the temptation for ego to ruin big projects. Most of us can't imagine the pressure in his shoes.

benatkin 11mo ago

I happen to be inclined to agree with what the post says. First it leads with a similing mastodon with hearts. Later on it says "I’m also aware that my aversion to public appearances cost Mastodon some opportunities in publicity." I'm sad about part of the reason why he decided to transition away from being CEO, not that he's decided to transition away from being CEO, and I'm optimistic about Mastodon.

mperham 11mo ago

He's stepping down as CEO. He'll still contribute. Most gifted technical people are not strong organizational leaders so it's mature to recognize your own limits and find someone else who can fill that role.

glenstein 11mo ago

Eugen*