Now, would the journalists who wrote articles with titles that are a variation of "RMS defended Epstein" [1,2] apologize or at least correct their articles? Also, now that RMS has explicitly clarified his position on these issues, can the people who leveraged his "silence" and "bad behavior" to oust him from the FSF at least admit that their motive was less about making the free-software movement welcoming and was more about getting rid of RMS?
We would be better off if we could remove those dishonest people from our communities here and elsewhere.
Dishonest reporting, and amplifying of dishonest posts on social media is not something you will ever get an apology for, because those efforts were never meant to survive scrutiny. They were meant to create "pressure" to cause reputational damage.
You cannot convince or engage bad-faith actors. All you can do is identify and eliminate them from your social media circles and sites as best you can.
This is one of the reasons I believe social media sites should enact age-based voting. Such that older accounts that have withstood the reputational scrutiny, have greater influence.
I'd be surprised if we saw retractions, especially retractions reaching everyone who saw the original claims, but maybe Vice could write a piece attacking the daily beast article while the daily beast writes an article attacking the Vice one.
No, no that’s not how journalism works. They report the FACTS as they see them. /s
There’s no such thing as a retraction anymore, it’s just clarifications. I would have more faith in the media if they admitted when they were wrong, or at least presented, thoughtfully considered, opposing viewpoints. My faith in the media perhaps really took its first hit with Nick Sandman. I just felt weird that all these people were coming down on a kid. The level of vitriol was disturbing, and many it seems were wrong. I expect CNN to say so, but I don’t think they will, and thus the conflict remains unresolved.
RMS does not call for that and it isn't necessary. He acknowledges his own tone-deafness. Plus, people understand editorials like those are interpretations of words. If you want the facts you look at the original source material and decide for yourself.
Modern reporting is about views. Click bait titles that state the worst get clicks. Nuanced truth bored people.
As long as we haven't found a way to entertain the masses without these embellishments I have no hope for an honest media.
Just remember this when they are stirring political division. This president caused this crisis, or this politician said this horrible thing. It's probably not as bad as they say it is.
I wonder if it's feasible to create some kind of database of reporters and their reliability - 'John doe has written n articles that turned out to be fundamentally wrong', Jane doe has written m articles that were fundamentally wrong'.
> Now, would the journalists who wrote articles with titles that are a variation of "RMS defended Epstein" [1,2] apologize or at least correct their articles?
If it does not create outrage or get any clicks, they have no incentive to do it. It's not like journalists have a conscience.
They've declared their verdict and moved on :) . It's the 24/7 newscycle they don't have time for corrections unless it is recent and they can put it on the "backpage"
The Minsky defense was not the primary, most important reason RMS can't serve as an effective, inclusive leader for free software, it was just the one that got the most attention. This does nothing to address the numerous complaints of harassment towards MIT students, the _other_ times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia, the public gaffes that are unacceptable as a public representative (e.g. the foot skin eating thing), and the fact that the FSF under Stallman kinda lost to open source anyway and hasn't really done anything besides virtue signal to others about how pure and ethical they are.
Imagine taking the time to publicly explain to an out-of-practice dev why some technical feature is needed, then being accused of a "pressure campaign" that requires the out-of-practice dev to consult privately, "with people I have confidence in."
Gnu devs have an impressive amount of patience and grace to put up with that. But I see a lot of other FOSS devs try to replicate RMS's unnecessarily aggressive rhetoric. They often shoot themselves in the foot with it, disrespecting and consequently losing valuable contributors who are otherwise aligned philosophically with the project in every way.
That kind of disruption is at odds with every value FOSS devs claim to hold-- meritocratic, decentralized, etc. Even Debian put the hammer down when an out-of-practice dev tried to use permissions to disrupt the work of a new dev. Nobody sane and self-respecting should put up with this kind of behavior.
"Later in life, I discovered that some people had negative reactions to my behavior, which I did not even know about. Tending to be direct and honest with my thoughts, I sometimes made others uncomfortable or even offended them -- especially women. This was not a choice: I didn't understand the problem enough to know which choices there were.
Sometimes I lost my temper because I didn't have the social skills to avoid it. Some people could cope with this; others were hurt. I apologize to each of them. Please direct your criticism at me, not at the Free Software Foundation."
This is such a great argument for why he shouldn't be in a leadership position. These social skills are crucial in this role.
Exactly, there was no reason the FSF board couldn't message him to seek advice without him holding a leadership position. I don't care if people contribute, but positions of leadership should be conveyed to people who set a positive example.
I think there's a massive difference with RMS in that he excuses his actions, but doesn't show much intent or ability to change them. Another FOSS leader, Linus Torvalds, did a 180 when it became clear his behavior wasn't tolerable anymore, and I think Linus showed a level of leadership in that which RMS cannot.
I have my own issues, and I freely admit I probably don't belong in a leadership role. Stallman should do the same, and put himself in an advising-only capacity.
Absolutely not. He is a theorist (if not the theorist) of Free Software. His role is paramount, he is literally the only human completely implacable regarding the degrees of freedom that should be guaranteed to algorithms and software.
The whole movement he started has as well spurred the Creative Commons movement, that is an application to the same principles more specifically to art.
I agree rms is unfit to be a leader, but as a member of the FSF board he is fit to give his opinion on what GPLv4 should be if it ever gets released. I'm trust FSF to do the right thing on "or later" licenses if rms is onboard, but when I see Red Hat removing funding to get him out of the board, well, this give me pause.
For better or worse, a huge number of very successful leaders have had problems with losing their temper. Not that we should idolize poor anger control, of course.
This comment section has devolved into another episode of "Hackernews attempts to justify the pointless character assassination of RMS by scraping the bottom of the barrel for half-assed reasons to be outraged"
It kind of misses the point it was never just about Minsky and Epstein.
> I sometimes made others uncomfortable or even offended them -- especially women. This was not a choice: I didn't understand the problem enough to know which choices there were.
Did anyone explain him that he downplayed the role of women in the GNU project? Janis Johnson, Sandra Loosemore, and Dorit Nuzman, to name a few, all did extraordinary work. Did he ever correct his statements about no women volunteering to work on GCC? Did he even read the author lists?
Did anyone ever tell him the Emacs virgins thing is very inappropriate? I'm pretty sure someone must have done that and, if not, he must have read the account of one young girl about how she felt. The fact he did that routine for years indicates he didn't listen or didn't care enough to change. And no, it's not normal for adults to be sexually attracted to teens.
I am very sure he now has been informed his behaviour is unacceptable. Is he doing anything to change that? That he doesn't have the innate wiring to recognise those subtle cues makes it more necessary for him to listen and take action on his behaviour because he is seen as the person behind the FSF and his actions and opinions reflect on the entire community.
All these are clear indications he, and the FSF board, don't see any of these as problems and that, sadly, makes them unfit to lead the Free Software community.
> Did he ever correct his statements about no women volunteering to work on GCC?
He wasn't aware of women working on GCC. There's nothing to correct. I'm not aware of women working on GCC. GNU has thousands of people working on it, he's not aware of most of them. So much criticism of him is taking his comments out of context and misrepresenting them, including so many things that are just complete fabrications that it makes it hard to actually understand what "real" problems there are.
> Did anyone ever tell him the Emacs virgins thing is very inappropriate?
Yes, and he agreed and stopped.
> And no, it's not normal for adults to be sexually attracted to teens.
K. You totally lost me there. Ever been to a porn website?
>It kind of misses the point it was never just about Minsky and Epstein.
This was how it started and this was also what most news reported on so I do not believe that it misses the point.
>Did anyone explain him that he downplayed the role of women in the GNU project?
Did you ask him?
>Did he ever correct his statements about no women volunteering to work on GCC? Did he even read the author lists?
Did you ask him?
>Did anyone ever tell him the Emacs virgins thing is very inappropriate?
He changed it after someone complained about it.
>That he doesn't have the innate wiring to recognise those subtle cues makes it more necessary for him to listen and take action on his behaviour because he is seen as the person behind the FSF and his actions and opinions reflect on the entire community.
This is a very ableist/sanist view. I would argue that it is the neurotypicals that should put the extra effort to be more explicit and not assume stuff.
This is really the crux of it. His "apology" boils down to "I'm on the spectrum, I'm not good with people stuff". Which would be fine, except what he did was a recurring theme throughout his career and belied sexist and misogynist attitudes. Maybe some people egged him on, but he chose to ignore the people who told him no and those who told him it made them uncomfortable or that it was abusive.
This isn't about not understanding social cues or lacking intuitive empathy, this is about actively choosing to ignore victims telling you what you're doing to them because your position allows you to get away with it.
This isn't the first time I've seen autism (or the implication thereof) being used to reframe gross sexual misconduct as naïve ignorance and it's simply disgusting and insulting towards other autistics who can't read emotions and are socially awkward but understand consent.
What he did went well beyond "locker room" jokes like the Emacs virgins thing or "tonedeaf" postulating about the age of consent. The reason he didn't understand that it was wrong wasn't that he's bad at social cues, it's that he didn't think of women as human beings.
I think message is genuine, and sympathize with his stand. His work on free software has been invaluable and shaped the software world in a good way. To paint the whole person as a "bad guy" ("terrible person") in the context of the latest developments always seemed off to me.
However, usually apologies in this context backfire.
Everything that you say about this can and will be used against you.
This has happened to various people before, who (I believe) have been well-meaning but offended the wrong people.
I sincerely hope the best for him, but I don't expect this apology/elaboration will help him.
He didn’t apologize authentically. He might not be capable of it. And... if he did it doesn’t at all follow that his apology would be accepted. It is neither timely, nor adequately sincere and it doesn’t indicate that he is taking appropriate actions to atone. This statement is as self countered and RMS centering as his actions were. I suspect he isn’t capable of change without intervention and a lot of therapy, neither of which have been indicated here. Note: I’ve directly witnessed and dealt with RMS’s awful behavior towards women twice in my career.
It does not matter one bit if contemporary audiences react as you predict. His statements, and that of his accusers, are all on the record.
I suspect RMS is made of sterner stuff, given his track record, and while no doubt these events must have exacted a psychological toll (after all, he is a human being) he must also be aware that there remain today many of us who deeply appreciate his principled positions regarding matters that affect us all.
And one remains hopeful that future generations that are afforded the necessary distance from conflated matters that cloud contemporary judgment will reach a more balanced conclusion and give the man his due credit.
People keep focusing on the Minsky thing, but if Stallman hadn't spent the last 40 years being a creep (the "emacs virgin" thing), being a creep ('tender embraces'), being abusive (the FSF unionized to protect themselves from him), being abusive (https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1174044770546659329), being abusive (https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1374460763910201350), being a jerk ("These birth announcements also spread the myth that having a baby is something to be proud of"), then he might have been able to weather the storm a little better.
This isn't a 'oh, he said one thing one time about one person' situation, this is instead a lifetime of behavior that for anybody else would have had consequences long ago.
Miguel de Icaza is not a trustworthy person, especially due to the way that he betrayed the community. I am curious though, did he just sat there being passive-aggressive or did he tell rms to leave? Since nobody seems to have asked him about what actually happened I am going to.
I will also ask him about this because I am curious.
>being a jerk ("These birth announcements also spread the myth that having a baby is something to be proud of"),
Does not seem like a jerk thing to do.
>This isn't a 'oh, he said one thing one time about one person' situation, this is instead a lifetime of behavior that for anybody else would have had consequences long ago.
It would be great if the ones organizing harassment campaigns against him also agreed with you. So far they have been focusing on spreading lies about him (such as about epstein, the mattress, or his opinions) rather than actual repeated abuse by him after people expressed their dislike for it.
The constant mischaracterization of what he really meant, by reposting the same misquotes of his emails, was really shameful for a lot of 'journalists'.
I'm gonna drop this again where ACLU's former president Nadine Strossen shares her view which is more sophisticated and thought through than mine is anyways - https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web
Reading this breaks my heart a little. Having the humility to bow to the people that harassed him and the FSF is a gesture I wasn't really expecting from him.
However it's refreshing to see that people that are consistently seen as abrasive and negative, can introspect, even due to external circumstances, and try to correct their behaviour so late in life.
I feel like online we need to try to empathize a lot more with others that don't match the well established "disadvantaged" categories instead of piling on the negativity.
I really hope this will be sufficient to let this whole situation rest. The right thing to do is to accept his apology while holding him accountable for his commitment to be better in the future.
It's good that he acknowledges his comments hurt people. It's good that he is pledging to do better. I think as far as apologies go, this one ticks most of the boxes as far as admitting personal fault and not using weasel-words to blame the victims or apologize "if you were offended."
With all that said, I don't think this is going to bring any of the lost sponsors back.
I really have no idea why anyone wants to keep RMS in charge of the FSF based on his work product alone. What has the FSF been doing other than slowly sliding into irrelevancy over the past 20 years?
It is fascinating to me how humane and sincere his statement is (compared to empty phrases of corporate leaders and predictable rhetoric of culture warriors), considering his putative issues with tone-deafness and social clues.
The good side of this witch-hunt is that the bad and the ugly revealed themselves. E.g. RedHat or Mozilla stopped their support to the fsf[1] with this hunt as scapegoat.
Note to others: Try not to defend yourself in an apology. Otherwise it ceases to become an apology, and instead becomes a list of reasons why there should be no accountability.
[+] [-] b215826|4 years ago|reply
[1]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r... [2]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient...
[+] [-] koheripbal|4 years ago|reply
We would be better off if we could remove those dishonest people from our communities here and elsewhere.
Dishonest reporting, and amplifying of dishonest posts on social media is not something you will ever get an apology for, because those efforts were never meant to survive scrutiny. They were meant to create "pressure" to cause reputational damage.
You cannot convince or engage bad-faith actors. All you can do is identify and eliminate them from your social media circles and sites as best you can.
This is one of the reasons I believe social media sites should enact age-based voting. Such that older accounts that have withstood the reputational scrutiny, have greater influence.
[+] [-] whatshisface|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] underseacables|4 years ago|reply
There’s no such thing as a retraction anymore, it’s just clarifications. I would have more faith in the media if they admitted when they were wrong, or at least presented, thoughtfully considered, opposing viewpoints. My faith in the media perhaps really took its first hit with Nick Sandman. I just felt weird that all these people were coming down on a kid. The level of vitriol was disturbing, and many it seems were wrong. I expect CNN to say so, but I don’t think they will, and thus the conflict remains unresolved.
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kiro|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xupybd|4 years ago|reply
As long as we haven't found a way to entertain the masses without these embellishments I have no hope for an honest media.
Just remember this when they are stirring political division. This president caused this crisis, or this politician said this horrible thing. It's probably not as bad as they say it is.
[+] [-] mathgorges|4 years ago|reply
I was out of the loop on this and tracking down the reporting to which RMS is replying was proving more difficult than expected.
[+] [-] generalizations|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _y5hn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crocodiletears|4 years ago|reply
The activists won their war. No reason for them to declare it unjust.
[+] [-] ekianjo|4 years ago|reply
If it does not create outrage or get any clicks, they have no incentive to do it. It's not like journalists have a conscience.
[+] [-] stjohnswarts|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Osmose|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jancsika|4 years ago|reply
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...
Imagine taking the time to publicly explain to an out-of-practice dev why some technical feature is needed, then being accused of a "pressure campaign" that requires the out-of-practice dev to consult privately, "with people I have confidence in."
Gnu devs have an impressive amount of patience and grace to put up with that. But I see a lot of other FOSS devs try to replicate RMS's unnecessarily aggressive rhetoric. They often shoot themselves in the foot with it, disrespecting and consequently losing valuable contributors who are otherwise aligned philosophically with the project in every way.
That kind of disruption is at odds with every value FOSS devs claim to hold-- meritocratic, decentralized, etc. Even Debian put the hammer down when an out-of-practice dev tried to use permissions to disrupt the work of a new dev. Nobody sane and self-respecting should put up with this kind of behavior.
Edit: clarification
[+] [-] stusmall|4 years ago|reply
Sometimes I lost my temper because I didn't have the social skills to avoid it. Some people could cope with this; others were hurt. I apologize to each of them. Please direct your criticism at me, not at the Free Software Foundation."
This is such a great argument for why he shouldn't be in a leadership position. These social skills are crucial in this role.
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|4 years ago|reply
I think there's a massive difference with RMS in that he excuses his actions, but doesn't show much intent or ability to change them. Another FOSS leader, Linus Torvalds, did a 180 when it became clear his behavior wasn't tolerable anymore, and I think Linus showed a level of leadership in that which RMS cannot.
I have my own issues, and I freely admit I probably don't belong in a leadership role. Stallman should do the same, and put himself in an advising-only capacity.
[+] [-] henearkr|4 years ago|reply
Absolutely not. He is a theorist (if not the theorist) of Free Software. His role is paramount, he is literally the only human completely implacable regarding the degrees of freedom that should be guaranteed to algorithms and software.
The whole movement he started has as well spurred the Creative Commons movement, that is an application to the same principles more specifically to art.
[+] [-] nextaccountic|4 years ago|reply
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-statement-about-richa...
[+] [-] whatshisface|4 years ago|reply
For better or worse, a huge number of very successful leaders have had problems with losing their temper. Not that we should idolize poor anger control, of course.
[+] [-] pmarin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeyBananas|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|4 years ago|reply
> I sometimes made others uncomfortable or even offended them -- especially women. This was not a choice: I didn't understand the problem enough to know which choices there were.
Did anyone explain him that he downplayed the role of women in the GNU project? Janis Johnson, Sandra Loosemore, and Dorit Nuzman, to name a few, all did extraordinary work. Did he ever correct his statements about no women volunteering to work on GCC? Did he even read the author lists?
Did anyone ever tell him the Emacs virgins thing is very inappropriate? I'm pretty sure someone must have done that and, if not, he must have read the account of one young girl about how she felt. The fact he did that routine for years indicates he didn't listen or didn't care enough to change. And no, it's not normal for adults to be sexually attracted to teens.
I am very sure he now has been informed his behaviour is unacceptable. Is he doing anything to change that? That he doesn't have the innate wiring to recognise those subtle cues makes it more necessary for him to listen and take action on his behaviour because he is seen as the person behind the FSF and his actions and opinions reflect on the entire community.
All these are clear indications he, and the FSF board, don't see any of these as problems and that, sadly, makes them unfit to lead the Free Software community.
[+] [-] r3856283|4 years ago|reply
He wasn't aware of women working on GCC. There's nothing to correct. I'm not aware of women working on GCC. GNU has thousands of people working on it, he's not aware of most of them. So much criticism of him is taking his comments out of context and misrepresenting them, including so many things that are just complete fabrications that it makes it hard to actually understand what "real" problems there are.
> Did anyone ever tell him the Emacs virgins thing is very inappropriate?
Yes, and he agreed and stopped.
> And no, it's not normal for adults to be sexually attracted to teens.
K. You totally lost me there. Ever been to a porn website?
[+] [-] bingbong70|4 years ago|reply
~1 million years of human history disagrees with your statement.
[+] [-] torthrowaway998|4 years ago|reply
This was how it started and this was also what most news reported on so I do not believe that it misses the point.
>Did anyone explain him that he downplayed the role of women in the GNU project?
Did you ask him?
>Did he ever correct his statements about no women volunteering to work on GCC? Did he even read the author lists?
Did you ask him?
>Did anyone ever tell him the Emacs virgins thing is very inappropriate?
He changed it after someone complained about it.
>That he doesn't have the innate wiring to recognise those subtle cues makes it more necessary for him to listen and take action on his behaviour because he is seen as the person behind the FSF and his actions and opinions reflect on the entire community.
This is a very ableist/sanist view. I would argue that it is the neurotypicals that should put the extra effort to be more explicit and not assume stuff.
[+] [-] hnbad|4 years ago|reply
This isn't about not understanding social cues or lacking intuitive empathy, this is about actively choosing to ignore victims telling you what you're doing to them because your position allows you to get away with it.
This isn't the first time I've seen autism (or the implication thereof) being used to reframe gross sexual misconduct as naïve ignorance and it's simply disgusting and insulting towards other autistics who can't read emotions and are socially awkward but understand consent.
What he did went well beyond "locker room" jokes like the Emacs virgins thing or "tonedeaf" postulating about the age of consent. The reason he didn't understand that it was wrong wasn't that he's bad at social cues, it's that he didn't think of women as human beings.
[+] [-] heinrichhartman|4 years ago|reply
However, usually apologies in this context backfire. Everything that you say about this can and will be used against you. This has happened to various people before, who (I believe) have been well-meaning but offended the wrong people.
I sincerely hope the best for him, but I don't expect this apology/elaboration will help him.
[+] [-] whatshisface|4 years ago|reply
As pointed out by other commenters, this is more of a defense, or an explanation, than it is an apology.
[+] [-] n9|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eternalban|4 years ago|reply
I suspect RMS is made of sterner stuff, given his track record, and while no doubt these events must have exacted a psychological toll (after all, he is a human being) he must also be aware that there remain today many of us who deeply appreciate his principled positions regarding matters that affect us all.
And one remains hopeful that future generations that are afforded the necessary distance from conflated matters that cloud contemporary judgment will reach a more balanced conclusion and give the man his due credit.
[+] [-] sneak|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bigbillheck|4 years ago|reply
This isn't a 'oh, he said one thing one time about one person' situation, this is instead a lifetime of behavior that for anybody else would have had consequences long ago.
[+] [-] torthrowaway998|4 years ago|reply
He stopped doing it once people told him that it made others uncomfortable.
>being a creep ('tender embraces')
In the business cards that he gave out to people of any gender. This is not really a creepy thing to do.
>being abusive (https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1174044770546659329)
Miguel de Icaza is not a trustworthy person, especially due to the way that he betrayed the community. I am curious though, did he just sat there being passive-aggressive or did he tell rms to leave? Since nobody seems to have asked him about what actually happened I am going to.
>https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1374460763910201350
I will also ask him about this because I am curious.
>being a jerk ("These birth announcements also spread the myth that having a baby is something to be proud of"),
Does not seem like a jerk thing to do.
>This isn't a 'oh, he said one thing one time about one person' situation, this is instead a lifetime of behavior that for anybody else would have had consequences long ago.
It would be great if the ones organizing harassment campaigns against him also agreed with you. So far they have been focusing on spreading lies about him (such as about epstein, the mattress, or his opinions) rather than actual repeated abuse by him after people expressed their dislike for it.
[+] [-] SuperSandro2000|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kablp|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ziml77|4 years ago|reply
(I still don't believe this apology should have been considered necessary though)
[+] [-] sheepdestroyer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unsungNovelty|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] froh|4 years ago|reply
https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-...
[+] [-] mariusor|4 years ago|reply
However it's refreshing to see that people that are consistently seen as abrasive and negative, can introspect, even due to external circumstances, and try to correct their behaviour so late in life.
I feel like online we need to try to empathize a lot more with others that don't match the well established "disadvantaged" categories instead of piling on the negativity.
[+] [-] Zelphyr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AdmiralAsshat|4 years ago|reply
With all that said, I don't think this is going to bring any of the lost sponsors back.
[+] [-] ashtonkem|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icha|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zajio1am|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jan454|4 years ago|reply
.. really sad for RedHat though ..
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_ri...
[+] [-] joana035|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sthomas1618|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pieter_mj|4 years ago|reply
I'm wondering if this last talent does actually require being on the spectrum, as he admits to in his first paragraphs.