I wish we could stop deifying Richard Stallman. He had a good idea once, but the open source movement has outgrown him and his transphobic misogynistic beliefs
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37573 readers
520 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You forgot ‘pedophilic’.
I think the problem there is that, for many years, nobody bothered to explain to him exactly why child porn is bad.
Most people observe that everyone else thinks it's bad and don't question it any further. That's not good enough for Stallman, though, and for good reason: expecting him to unquestioningly bow to peer pressure is an insult to his intelligence.
Someone did eventually explain the problem to Stallman. I don't know what exactly was explained, but my guess is that Stallman was told that child porn is non-consensual and therefore violates the child's privacy, similar to how revenge porn violates the subject's privacy. At any rate, after that discussion took place, Stallman did an about-face on the subject, and is now opposed to child porn like anyone else.
Moral of the story: taboos and peer pressure bad; logic and education good.
Is he a robot? This iseems like a very strange thing to have to explain to a grown-ass man.
Probably just autistic, I mean as far as I know he hasn't been diagnosed but he's checking a lot of the boxes. And the way he views the world and basing conclusions on those views make sense to me in that context.
He's just more rigid and extreme in approaching the world from that frame of mind than most people are. Thus sometimes leading to "bad" takes where his intentions are probably not terrible in the way people think they are.
How was he supposed to know, if no one ever told him? They didn't teach about child porn when I was in school, and Stallman is older than me.
Gosh, how would someone ever figure out child abuse is a bad thing?
We are discussing the porn itself, not what happened in the process of making it. If it were illegal to possess a video because it depicts a crime, then it would also be illegal to possess a video of police murdering innocent people, and we definitely don't want to go there.
for observers: please don't essentially argue possession of child sex abuse material should be legal because otherwise the standard is set for making videos of police committing crimes illegal
This is an extremely weird comment to make. Are you implying that sexual abuse being wrong needs to be taught explicitly ?
his transphobic misogynistic beliefs
Mind shedding some light for an internet stranger?
The open source community (or movement) is about, well..open source that many of us here benefit from and greatly appreciate. While everyone is free to agree or disagree with the personal ideals of any developer who has made their positions known, it's not fair to discount the importance of someone's historical contributions just because their current opinions seem incongruent to our own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
We dont need shitheads in open source. There are plenty of other minds out there without doing any "separate the art from the artist" non-sense talk.
FOSS doesn't need assholes like stallman and better people are doing the work now he started years ago.
We kinda do need him, though. Very few people are as intensely principled as he is on the subject of computing freedom, and without him anchoring the Overton window, there's nothing stopping the Bill Gateses of this world from moving it.
Well he's on Mastodon so I guess that's your answer.
Why would we attack the author? That seems like an oddly specific request that makes me oddly suspicious of the author, if anything.
Because there's sales text in the "educational" article.
You should use an XMPP server that respects your privacy. If you truly want privacy and don’t want to trust any server, we recommend setting up your own server. If this beyond your technical interests then we can setup a server for you and hand over the passwords. If we setup a server for you, then you’d pick the domain name and get complete control over who can use it.
Yes, I was kind of being rhetorical there, I thought that would be enough to draw attention to what's going on. Also a new Lemmy account that exclusively links to one unknown website is a big red flag.
The thing that frustrates me in all these discussions is that everybody is missing the bigger picture. The problem isn't Facebook, Reddit or Twitter, the core problem is the Internet itself, DNS, HTTPS and all that stuff that other stuff that stops working when you are stuck behind a NAT with a dynamic IP, as all regular users are. The modern Internet does not work for P2P communication.
That is the problem that needs attacking. Nothing else matters. Figure out how to find a person/account on the net and establish a data connection to them. Solve that and you chat with netcat, no need for fancy apps. Don't solve it and you'll just get a crap load of garbage apps that all will fail sooner or later. For example all my XMPP addresses are no longer working since user@host is a stupid way to handle identities when user is not the one controlling host and owning host costs money.
PS: There are some projects around like libp2p or IPFS that try to solve it, but nothing of that has gained bigger traction from what I understand. Freenet also just got a complete restart from scratch, though no idea what state of usable that is in.
VeilID might be something you find interesting. It's designed to solve exactly this problem by enabling most nodes to NATsmash with help for p2p stuff, and also provides a general and very strong privacy framework including torlike routing ^.^
It was only unveiled at defcon this year though so the team behind it (Cult Of The Dead Cow) are trying to put docs in place ;p
Its completely written in rust, easily embeddable, has good content locality and is probably the cleanest, most performant, and most easily integrated into projects architecture for stuff like this that I've seen, as a programmer who's into this space and familiar with things like i2p, tor, etc. I really hope this one takes off, and the quality of it means I really think it could (at least once they throw the docs together ;p)
Wouldn't IPv6 solve this? Give each device a static address and you have the state of the internet before NAT became necessary
No it won't resolve the HTTPS and DNS centralized issues.
You don’t want all your devices on the internet with no firewall.
Having globally routable IPv6 addresses for each device doesn't prevent you from running firewalls.
I don’t see any mention of not using a firewall in this thread.
Yes, somewhat. The problem is places still suck at adopting it, especially phone carriers, and most people are primarily connected via their phones and a lot of people even use that infrastructure as a replacement for broadband as well.
What do you mean by phone carriers not adopting IPv6? Didn’t Apple essentially force carriers to use IPv6? AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon all support native IPv6 if I’m not mistaken.
Same goes for Internet providers. Every residential cable Internet service I’ve had going back to 2008 had IPv6 turned on (though YMMV depending on what router you use, especially if you use the clunky one they give you).
It might be because I live in the UK.
The internet I use is permanently stuck in "use phone carrier as backup" mode and we don't have ipv6 because of that.
Data for me also seems stuck in ipv4.
I’ve heard that some ISPs will enable it if you call them, but usually they’ll ask why you need it. You can just tell them you work remotely and the company VPN is IPv6 only because it’s 2023 and they don’t want to contribute to IPv4 address exhaustion.
No, not really, at least not by itself. IPv6 only makes NAT a tiny little easier/unnecessary, as every computer has a routeable IP address. However, many routers will block incoming connections by default, so you still have to go to your router config and fiddle, just as with NAT. IPv6 also doesn't help with DNS, a routeable address by itself is meaningless when there is no means to find out what address the other guy has. IPv6 are dynamic and change all the time, even more frequently than IPv4.
XMPP has a few issues, like not being that great for tunneling through HTTP and also having a concept of presence built in at its core that’s no longer relevant in today’s always-online world.
It also needs a lot of extensions to be usable, like session resumption.
There's no mention though in the linked article that Richard actually thinks this? Both XMPP and Nostr are extensible. Nostr saw accounts linked to a server as weakness, and therefore went with many relays (any of which can be used).
But as also mentioned, Richard is actually very active on Mastodon today. ActivityPub is not the best protocol around, but it is now a W3C standard and seems to have more popular uptake than both XMPP and Nostr (Nostr having the excuse that it is very new still).
BTW I'm active daily on XMPP, Nostr, Mastodon, IRC, and many more, so have no particular stake in any one.
The educational article promotes their own XMPP service, which isn’t inherently bad but at odds with your note about no sales text