Thread

Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties (2001)

154 points · 99 comments · B1FF_PSUVM

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

xlayn · 1789667839 · focus · HN ↗
Every time "these type of people" are dismissed as lunatics, as extremist and alarmist, time comes back to prove they were right.
I frankly dismissed the idea of "a group of extremely powerful and rich pedos" under a pizza store... and yes there were none under any pizza store.
1. ekjhgkejhgk · 1789667983 · focus · HN ↗
  Stallman and "rich pedos" aren't even close in terms of lunacy. I never thought that Stallman's rants were far fetched at all.
2. sroerick · 1789669857 · focus · HN ↗
  <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pioneer-quits-mit-over-his-comments-on-epstein-sex-trafficking-cas" rel="nofollow">https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pione...
  1. F3nd0 · 1789670343 · focus · HN ↗
    How is the link relevant to the topic at hand?
    ChickeNES · 1789671482 · focus · HN ↗
    How is RMS's connection/response to Epstein not relevant?
    F3nd0 · 1789672603 · focus · HN ↗
    The topic seems to be warnings and predictions coming true even if they seem far-fetched at first. The linked article doesn’t talk about any warnings or predictions. It only recounts (in a way) how RMS, while discussing the topic of Epstein’s abuse, said some things which many people found offensive, leading to his resignation.
    I guess it is marginally relevant; it just seems odd to drop a marginally relevant link unaccompanied by further comment. Usually people seem to mention what brought it to mind, or which part they found particularly interesting.
    blagie · 1789671986 · focus · HN ↗
    I think it's a good, contemporary example of how RMS tends to be misunderstood.
    In this context, his comments tend to be:
    a) Correct, if you read them precisely (which is how RMS writes -- precisely)
    b) Horrible, if you read them with the subtext implied in mainstream culture (which is how people read what RMS writes)
    That combination results in "with the terrorists" in 2001, "with Epstein" in 2026, and a lot of similar things in between.
    beedeebeedee · 1789673050 · focus · HN ↗
    > Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong.
    Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the age of consent in the jurisdiction of Epstein's island), it is still wrong and he absolutely should have known that.
    I am a big fan of Stallman's work and his views considering computer science and its role in society, but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.
    worik · 1789674727 · focus · HN ↗
    > but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.
    The views he expressed re sexual assault were abhorrent
    I have huge respect for RMS. Being this wrong once shows the bad way (we) men of a certain age were raised. The idea that sexual assault must involve violence or the threat of violence is old, out of date, and at one point RMS held it along with society at large
    Times change, and as we get older we need to change with them.
    F3nd0 · 1789679486 · focus · HN ↗
    In this instance, Stallman was arguing semantics. His long-term criticism [1] is that ‘sexual assault’ is being used to cover a wide range of wrongful actions, where a more nuanced terminology to distinguish between them would be more appropriate. That in itself doesn’t imply he finds any of those actions acceptable, only that he’d like them to have more specific names.
    He might not have picked a good time and place to share his terminological views, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them per se.
    [1] <a href="https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault" rel="nofollow">https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault
    beedeebeedee · 1789706886 · focus · HN ↗
    From the article, Stallman said "We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing."
    That expresses an extreme obtuseness about human behavior and a lack of nuance. A 17 year old is a child. He is not “precise” or “correct” as the prior commenter claimed. He is clueless.
    blagie · 1789732409 · focus · HN ↗
    This is not correct.
    This expresses an extreme inability to properly communicate subtext, which is common for autistic individuals, or ones autism-adjacent.
    Stallman's comments, if read logically like a computer, are generally strictly correct. Stallman's comments, if read inferentially like a human might, often imply abhorrent things.
    This is called a miscommunication.
    beedeebeedee · 1789761162 · focus · HN ↗
    > Stallman's comments, if read logically like a computer, are generally strictly correct. Stallman's comments, if read inferentially like a human might, often imply abhorrent things.
    That's not actually true. I understand the drive to what to categorize it as such (and also admire Stallman for things he has done), but if you look at the context of what he said (even mentioned in that article) you will realize that this is not a "definitional" issue or have anything to do with strict precision of terms. That is a red herring that you are getting stuck on and using to defend him. I don't care about whether or not he thinks they are applying a word that he disagrees on the definition (I will cede that if you want, because that is besides the point and not what he is actually arguing).
    He (like you) is making the claim:
    > Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong.
    That is demonstrably wrong. We may not a definitive morality that I can point to you and we both agree to the letter, but a 73 year old man should have the wisdom at that age to recognize that sleeping with a child is damaging to that child even if they appear willing. I will grant that Minsky's participation was not the most damaging thing in her life, but he chose to participate and harmed her, contrary to what you and Stallman are claiming. It is unfortunate that we have many men (and women) who do and believe like Minsky and Stallman, and shows that we need to address this and get everybody on the same page when it comes to how we let children develop in our culture.
    blagie · 1789844639 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not sure how to respond to this, except to point out that in a second comment, you finally conceded this:
    > Minsky's participation
    Did not happen.
    The polite thing would be to apologize.
    And this:
    > if you look at the context of what he said
    Would require you to share context. People have a history of sharing an article about an article about an article about what Stallman said.
    When I go back to the source, he does have an extreme case of foot-in-mouth, but I have seen nothing from primary sources which would justify the smear campaign. Usually, the "context" is a conversation about terrorists or whatnot, Stallman making some academic point, and the "context" labelling him as "with the terrorists." Stallman:
    - Can't read the room
    - Doesn't follow the context
    - Speaks precisely
    Let me be blunt: You're smearing good people who worked to improve the world. That's not cool. It's also something which does broader harm than you might imagine. It means all but the most thick-skinned won't want to get into positions like Minsky or Stallman.
    The Minsky situation was MIT looking for a fall-man.
    The Stallman one dates back to Microsoft's engineered astroturf campaign, back when they were anti-FLOSS.
    Why the fuck would I ever want to pick a fight with a corporation doing something nasty, if the result would be people like you calling me a pedophile?
    The reason I give people a very large amount of benefit-of-the-doubt is because I've seen the effect these engineered smear campaigns have on individuals. I've also seen the amount of crazy that happens when one is famous. If a million people know who you are, and 0.01% do something crazy -- obsessive false accusations, bomb threats, or whatnot -- that's still a hundred people. Britney Spears or Zuckerberg will have security teams, legal teams, and PR teams to handle that. People who, like Stallman, are fundamentally doing something for the public benefit have the same pressure from crazies, astroturf, and whatnot, but without the ability to afford a defence.
    beedeebeedee · 1789854541 · focus · HN ↗
    >> Minsky's participation > Did not happen Unless you have special knowledge that the public does not have you do not know that and need to stop basing your argument on it
    blagie · 1789917262 · focus · HN ↗
    I do, and I replied elsewhere.
    You need to stop basing your argument on a smear campaigns and obvious red herrings.
    F3nd0 · 1789745207 · focus · HN ↗
    It does seem entirely possible (not sure about ‘most plausible’) she would have presented herself as entirely willing. I see no fundamental problem with that statement. (Note that there’s a huge difference between ‘presented herself as entirely willing’ and ‘was entirely willing’, which I should hope you’re keeping in mind.)
    Legally, a 17 year old may be a child in many jurisdictions, but that fact alone has little bearing on their appearance and maturity, so how is it relevant to the topic here? Had she been several months older at the time, would that have had any bearing on her interactions with Minsky, given her situation?
    beedeebeedee · 1789762042 · focus · HN ↗
    The above commenter and others have made the claim that Stallman is just being "precise" and "correct" about a misapplication of what sexual assault means, which is exactly besides the point and a red herring. They have also made the claim that "she would have presented herself as entirely willing". That is also besides the point. A 17 year old is a child, and that should have been enough for Minksy to not have engaged with her like that, and to recognize that Epstein was taking advantage of her (and in fact, trying to take advantage of him by offering her to him). That should have been enough. Making arguments about definitions or that she appeared "willing" are illegitimate attempts to deflect a serious moral failing. That in and of itself is a moral failing of Stallman, compounding Minsky's failing by trying to defend it.
    Minksy, Stallman and others who would try to defend them (like the commenter above, and perhaps you) should have the wisdom to recognize it is not ok even if "she would have presented herself as entirely willing".
    F3nd0 · 1789777799 · focus · HN ↗
    Unless you mean to imply that any sexual acts between a young person and a remarkably older one ought to begin with the former showing their ID to prove they are in fact of age, the fact that she was legally ‘a child’ is irrelevant to the moral failing at hand. (Because it would be absurd for the morality of the act to radically shift based on whether it takes place a couple of months later or earlier.)
    I do agree it was a significant moral failing (assuming he did go through with it), even if she did indeed present herself as willing and appeared of age. I don’t agree that trying to differentiate it from other related moral failings (even if it’s in a better light) constitutes a moral failing in itself, though. It is beside the point and not helpful to the matter at hand, but I don’t see much harm in it.
    beedeebeedee · 1789832491 · focus · HN ↗
    > Because it would be absurd for the morality of the act to radically shift based on whether it takes place a couple of months later or earlier.
    The morality of this is that you should not take advantage of and harm a vulnerable person. In this case, being a child makes them deeply vulnerable. It doesn't matter if it is "a couple of months later or earlier".
    F3nd0 · 1789846378 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, that’s exactly my point. Law usually draws a (somewhat arbitrary) line between child and adult, but what really happens is that people mature gradually, so while the practical difference between a 10-year-old and a 30-year-old is great, the practical difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old is minuscule.
    beedeebeedee · 1789854657 · focus · HN ↗
    Then your argument about this is a red herring
    F3nd0 · 1790433239 · focus · HN ↗
    You kept bringing attention to the fact that ‘a 17 year old is a child’, as if the legal distinction was relevant to a discussion on morality. I addressed it because it was beyond the point. What happened to her was morally equally bad whether she was 17 or 18 at the time.
    beedeebeedee · 1790481094 · focus · HN ↗
    Earlier I mentioned that the legal age was 16 in the Virgin Islands. I was emphasizing that the legality of age was not the primary issue; the issue was the morality of taking advantage of a vulnerable person. I think we may be on the same side of this.
    beedeebeedee · 1789709541 · focus · HN ↗
    > > but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.
    > The views he expressed re sexual assault were abhorrent
    Hi, yes, I think we agree- I was using those terms because that was what the commenter above was claiming
    blagie · 1789732271 · focus · HN ↗
    > Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the age of consent in the jurisdiction of Epstein's island), it is still wrong and he absolutely should have known that.
    This statement is factually false.
    She said she was asked to offer herself for sex to Minsky. People inferred from this that sex happened, but Virginia did not say this. Read the full file.
    Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined. Accounts from Minsky's friends say he was very monogamous. No one close to the situation supports an account of Minsky having sex with Virginia Giuffre.
    The natural next step should not have been to indict Minsky's reputation, but to ask Virginia Giuffre the natural follow-up: How did Minsky react when you made the offer?
    beedeebeedee · 1789832755 · focus · HN ↗
    In the deposition, she says she was directed by Maxwell to have sex with Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Marvin Minsky and others.
    > Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined.
    That statement is factually false, unless you have a source that is not publicly available. The only accounts I can find is that his widow said it couldn't have happened because that she said she was always with him, not that he declined.
    blagie · 1789843881 · focus · HN ↗
    Everything you wrote is materially correct. Given that you have this background, can you please explain how this:
    > Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73.
    Was not a lie?
    Also: Yes, I do have sources which are not publicly available, but the difference between "declined" versus "it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him" is within the spectrum of ambiguity of real-world human speech and memory. It is not materially different. The material point is there are multiple witnesses (at least the widow, in public sources) that say he did not have sex.
    If you want proof of MIT folks covering up:
    a) Read the MIT Transparency Report
    b) Look at photos on archive.org from people who went to Epstein island and events whom MIT did not reveal. All this was public at the time.
    Compare. But MIT also has travel records, so most of the people in the Epstein files, MIT knew about and chose to omit.
    beedeebeedee · 1789872719 · focus · HN ↗
    > It is not materially different.
    It is materially different. Either it did not happen as the widow claimed, or it did and it was declined.
    I will back down from my claim that Minsky did have sex with Virginia Giuffree. In the deposition in the case against Maxwell, the questions were if Maxwell directed her to have sex with Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Marvin Minsky and others. She was not asked if she actually followed through.
    If you have non-public information, then feel free to share, otherwise there is nothing left to say.
    blagie · 1789917026 · focus · HN ↗
    > I will back down from my claim that Minsky did have sex with Virginia Giuffree
    Thank you for backing down.
    An apology would be warranted.
    > It is materially different. Either it did not happen as the widow claimed, or it did and it was declined.
    The material fact was that sex did not happen, regardless of whether the argument was that people saw Minsky decline or the argument was that the widow was with him the whole time and saw it did not happen. The two are not contradictory.
    > If you have non-public information, then feel free to share, otherwise there is nothing left to say.
    I do. I never met Minsky, which was odd given we revolve in similar circles. I did and still do know a lot of people who do know Minsky, whom I trust. The accounts -- which for me are second-hand and for you are now third-hand, were that the widow wasn't the only witness that sex did not happen, and that people who know Minsky well found the concept of him cheating on his wife inconceivable. That's just not his personality.
    That's good enough for me to conclude that Minsky did not have sex with Virginia. It's not hard proof, but it seems extremely unlikely.
    However, even if it did seem plausible (let's omit the insider information from a stranger on the internet), I would STILL not indict Minsky without clear evidence. Treating people as guilty without proof is kind of evil, in my opinion. It's two kind of evil:
    - It's reprehensible when innocent people are treated as guilty. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio
    - It makes smear campaigns work. The reason corporations, the CIA, and other organizations are able to run character assassination on activists and whistleblowers is precisely people like you, willing to run with allegations.
    As a footnote: If you actually cared about pedophiles, corruption, and sex, why haven't you followed up on the obvious? The logical question -- if you bothered with logical inference over outrage -- would be why there were multiple, non-public witnesses who weren't mentioned in the MIT Transparency Report. Epstein got around a lot in MIT circles.
    beedeebeedee · 1789939218 · focus · HN ↗
    You've made several dubious claims. I'm honest and humble enough to be self-critical and not claim beyond what the deposition said, but that doesn't mean I should be held to a higher standard than you (i.e., if you did what you are demanding of me, you would have already apologized several times).
    You are claiming there is no difference in the defense by the widow (who said she was always with him), while also claiming that Minsky was offered but declined. Both can only be the true if the offer was discreetly made and that the widow did not notice. The consequence is that it diminishes her as a reliable witness and also raises the question if the offer was discreet, couldn't it have been just as discreetly accepted?
    If we accept your insider knowledge, it does not improve the circumstances. Not just because friends and colleagues would want to defend someone they are involved with (and indirectly, themselves), but also because the issue here is not just whether he participated, but why didn't he respond appropriately?
    He was an intellectual leader. Shouldn't we demand our leaders to be moral? In a slightly better world, he would have had the moral clarity of Norm Finkelstein and rejected any association with Epstein once he was offered sex by a 17 year old under his care. It does not appear that Minsky did that, likely because he did not want to risk the grant money and perks of hob-knobbing with the wealthy, or risk reputational harm that Epstein could have inflicted to discredit him.
    I will share a more ambiguous situation to make it clearer why Minsky's response was problematic. I had a friend at a Zen center when two young women came to visit. One of them was wealthy, and the other was nominally her friend but behaved like a servant. The wealthy one even directed her to have sex with some of the male students and other visitors. It was disturbing to my friend, and at the time, he was not sure how to respond. One could claim that the young woman who was being directed was benefitting from the relationship, and that, after all, she was an adult.
    However it is clear that it is toxic behavior, even if the young woman's victimhood might seem ambiguous to some. I would claim that the behavior should be rebuked and that morality should not just be about protecting the victims you see but also about rebuking malevolence, because there are so many victims that are not seen. The wealthy young woman was exhibiting her character, and that character would likely persist same whether it was in a relationship with her friend, children, or other vulnerable people. She should be plainly told that it is not ok.
    Although I think some of your assessments are misguided, I think we have common ground about scape-goating, which you were referencing in the second half of your response, but didn't name. If Minsky had rebuked Epstein, or if my friend had rebuked that young woman, it is likely that both would have been scape-goated. Malicious people do not bind themselves to morality so they can lie, instigate and conspire to undermine the reputation of whistle-blowers and other truth speakers. This is a persistent problem of humanity that was exemplified by the stories of Socrates and Jesus, and all of free-thinkers killed during the European medieval period, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It is a problem even in much more mundane settings, and will occur whenever a moral person confronts immoral leadership. That is why we have to trumpet morality, lend support to moral behavior and speak out against abuse.
    I'm not advocating for Minsky to be condemned as a terrible person. I'm just pointing out that he, as an exemplar of wide-spread societal behavior, did not do the right thing.
    blagie · 1790070027 · focus · HN ↗
    > You are claiming there is no difference in the defense by the widow (who said she was always with him), while also claiming that Minsky was offered but declined. Both can only be the true if the offer was discreetly made and that the widow did not notice.
    This doesn't seem like rocket science. If I am e.g. at a dinner party with my spouse, I might be aware there was no opportunity to have sex while not monitoring every conversation my spouse is involved with.
    Conversely, if someone flirts with my spouse, and my spouse doesn't engage, I might not take notice, or if I do, I might not find it important enough to report back. There's a broad space of possibilities. "Offered," in this context, is pretty broad.
    Famous people have such "offers" all the time. I was once mildly famous, and in one place I visited, there was a person who clearly expressed interest, who looked perhaps half my age. I signed an autograph and quickly moved on. This is the first time I even thought to even relay the story.
    > Not just because friends and colleagues would want to defend someone they are involved with...
    ... you have paranoid delusions. That's just not how the world works.
    > If Minsky had rebuked Epstein
    I have no evidence this did not happen, and neither do you. Most times, such rebukes are private. I also have no idea what, if anything, Minsky knew.
    > rejected any association
    > I'm not advocating for Minsky to be condemned as a terrible person. I'm just pointing out that he, as an example of wide-spread societal behavior, did not do the right thing.
    You have no idea what he did. You picked a random person, and decided to vilify him in your brain, based on fragmentary quotes.
    I'll also mention: Good people associate with bad people. Christians often cite how Jesus associated with tax collectors, sex workers, and other sinners. As a tactic, isolation does not work. Overcoming racism means associating with racists. Overcoming sexism means associating with sexists. "Talking with" is not the same as "supporting," and if we didn't have cancel culture or "cut diplomatic relations" as a punishment, the world would be a much better place.
    beedeebeedee · 1790088712 · focus · HN ↗
    > > Not just because friends and colleagues would want to defend someone they are involved with...
    > ... you have paranoid delusions. That's just not how the world works.
    Your brain is cooked
    blagie · 1790163647 · focus · HN ↗
    Your brain is cooked if you write:
    > I will back down from my claim that Minsky did have sex with Virginia Giuffree
    And then continue to argue basing your arguments on that "fact." You have some kind of vendetta. It's not grounded in evidence, and you're willing to contort facts around that vendetta.
    And you write things like:
    > if you did what you are demanding of me, you would have already apologized several times
    What I'm asking you to do is to not spread baseless accusations, especially about someone who can't defend themselves because they passed away.
    The people you should apologize to aren't myself, but the people whom you slandered.
    What do I have to apologize for, in your mind?
    beedeebeedee · 1790178914 · focus · HN ↗
    Yikes, please stop. It doesn't matter if Minsky did or did not accept her offer. Please re-read my comments (and your own).
    We've gone over this several times. You have not discussed this in good faith. I won't respond to you again about this.
    beedeebeedee · 1790101285 · focus · HN ↗
    I can't edit my last comment but want to address the rest of your response even if it has become clear that you are not discussing this in good faith.
    > > Not just because friends and colleagues would want to defend someone they are involved with...
    > ... you have paranoid delusions. That's just not how the world works.
    This is absolutely how the world works. Notice I did not say only. There usually will be a cohort that will immediately try to distance themselves, but also a cohort that will defend. The ratio will be different in different circumstances. You are denying the defending cohort while you are clearly part of it (if we believe your prior statements about your closeness of the situation). That is absurd.
    What is further absurd is that you are comparing Minksy and Epstein to Jesus's ministry amongst the poor and marginalized. I am not sure how to respond to that. I did not know Minksy but I can assure you he was much more likely thinking about his grant money and protecting his own reputation (and MIT's) than being Christ-like to Epstein.
    What you are talking about is enabling- ignoring morality. Once again, I'll state that that is not ok, and admonish Minksy for his own actions, as well as understanding that why we do this as a society is also to remind each other of what should be ok and what should not be ok. You seem to want to say that Minksy's association with Epstein was ok. I disagree. Let's leave oit at that.
3. zrail · 1789670475 · focus · HN ↗
  From the accounts I've read, RMS is a deeply unpleasant and problematic person.
  Doesn't mean he's wrong.
  1. F3nd0 · 1789670861 · focus · HN ↗
    Being wrong, being malicious, being harmful, and being unpleasant are all mostly separate, but get mixed up occasionally.
  2. blagie · 1789671724 · focus · HN ↗
    He's deeply problematic in the same way as someone with autism, Tourette syndrome, echolalia, or OCD are problematic.
    He's not neurotypical.
    Once you deal with it, he stops being problematic.
    And the striking thing is Cassandra syndrome: Virtually everything he has said:
    a) Proves right, decades later
    b) Sounds crazy to most people, at the time
    EA-3167 · 1789672260 · focus · HN ↗
    Don’t throw other people under the bus to justify what a wretched person he is. Being autistic doesn’t make you defend pedophilia or any of the other unpleasantness he’s implicated in.
    teddyh · 1789676142 · focus · HN ↗
    > defend pedophilia or any of the other unpleasantness he’s implicated in.
    Oh, well, time to link stuff again, I guess:
    • <<a href="https://stallmansupport.org/" rel="nofollow">https://stallmansupport.org/>
    • <<a href="https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/" rel="nofollow">https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/>
    EA-3167 · 1789677419 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks, but I’m not I’ll-informed, I just disagree with you.
    blagie · 1789732801 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, you are ill-informed.
    I can write "EA-3167" and "pedophilia" in an article 100 times. Congratulations! You're now associated with pedophilia. That's a classic smear campaign.
    Unless someone can cite something Stallman specifically said or did which implicates him, I'm passing on this as part of a smear campaign. I will not accept:
    - An article reporting on an article reporting on a misquote of Stallman
    - Subtext you read into something he wrote (his flaw is he doesn't get subtext to what he writes)
    There's infinite communications from him. He has no filter. Go on. Find something. If you can't, accept you're wrong. The alternative is that I'll accept you're being malicious.
    EA-3167 · 1789747319 · focus · HN ↗
    Ironically one of his fan’s “support pages” is a great source of just that.
    <a href="https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-against-richard-stallman.html#pedophilia" rel="nofollow">https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-agai...
    > “In 2006, Stallman published a controversial comment about the intention of pedophiles in The Netherlands to form a political party[1]. He wrote, I am skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children. People today don't think that a prepubertal human being—a child—is capable of understanding all the implications of sexual activity (in some cases this may be so even after puberty). So in widespread social opinion, the concept of “voluntary” does not apply.
    In the same article, Stallman writes, [...] stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. This is not totally improper, it encompasses the immense diversity of beliefs about age of consent and morality across cultures.
    As for laws, in the United States the criteria for determining age of consent and related issues differ across jurisdictions, some of them have raised the age of consent as recently as 2017 and 2019. Furthermore, the United States seems to have a double standard when it comes to these laws, since marriage of a child with an adult—even much older—is allowed under certain circumstances; we believe that this seriously disregards children's wellbeing in favor of some other “convenience.” Lastly, it may be surprising to some that age of consent in the US is 16 in 34 States”
    Then the actual “defense of Stallman” bit is that he changed his mind or at least said he did… thirteen years later:
    Whatever the reasoning that led Stallman to write those statements, the fact is that later he changed his mind:
    > “14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong)
    Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
    Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.”
    Note the date and remember this VERY late “change of heart” coincidentally took place one month after Epstein died and became the current sensation he remains.
    That’s from an attempt defend him, and ironically the site is full of documentation of the hideous things he says and believes.
    blagie · 1789760535 · focus · HN ↗
    What you posted is a secondary source, which is exactly what I didn't ask for. Most of that text is not Stallman.
    For reference, an original source is something like:
    <a href="https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party)" rel="nofollow">https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
    The so-called "article" is a one-line comment on a post in what looks like a 2006-era Twitter-style feed. I think one would see a similar amount of crazy from virtually anyone posting this much, without a filter.
    Read it.
    Do you believe Stallman is a pedophile on the basis of this comment?
    I do not.
    I've seen similar comments in academic texts, in the context of cultures where this happened and was acceptable (e.g. Greek pederasty in ancient Athens). From what I know of Stallman's communication style, I read this comment in a similar, if much less informed, light. He's making an incorrect but academic point, poorly.
    EA-3167 · 1789762659 · focus · HN ↗
    > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
    THE EXACT SAME QUOTE on the page you linked. I get it. Do yourself a favor and stop making excuses for him, you can still support the points he makes about FOSS without defending the rest or the man himself. His problem isn't communication style it's the content of what he says that's a problem.
    I also never said "Stallman is a pedophile" I said he supports pedophilia. That comment alone, never mind the others, is more than enough to make that claim. Have a lovely weekend.
    teddyh · 1789823715 · focus · HN ↗
    > I also never said "Stallman is a pedophile" I said he supports pedophilia.
    Which is wrong. He does not. You yourself cite him, at length, where he explains why he does not support it.
    teddyh · 1790346156 · focus · HN ↗
    > Note the date and remember this VERY late “change of heart” coincidentally took place one month after Epstein died and became the current sensation he remains.
    It actually happened in 2016: <<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184>, so no ”coincidence”.
    ChickeNES · 1789673120 · focus · HN ↗
    As someone on the spectrum/neurodivergent myself, no, it does not excuse his behavior whatsoever (or the lack of action by MIT).
    Stallman predicting that a technical capability could be abused and then somebody eventually abusing it is not Cassandra syndrome, it's just threat modeling run amuck. It gets old after a while (I should know, I remember classic Slashdot lol). The actual question is whether his proposed cure(s) were worth the cost, and that has very much not been "proven right" (if anything, LLMs/agents are rapidly eroding some of the practical premises his arguments depended on, IMO)
    bigfishrunning · 1789675493 · focus · HN ↗
    > if anything, LLMs/agents are rapidly eroding some of the practical premises his arguments depended on, IMO
    As someone who also remembers classic Slashdot, it's staggering how many of the things Stallman was writing about back then came true. Software is centralized and subscription based, and largely not under the consumer's control. I fail to see how LLMs make any of these situations better, care to elaborate?
    ChickeNES · 1789677949 · focus · HN ↗
    > Software is centralized and subscription based, and largely not under the consumer's control.
    Is it really though? I'll grant that you might have a point with iOS/Android and things like banking apps (no problem with the apps existing, it's when there's no web-based alternative is where the real issue lies). But there's more (F)OSS code out in the wild then there's ever been, Steam runs on Linux, major companies like Google and Nintendo putting licensing notices where you can read them). Not to mention the rise of open source hardware, the whole makersphere, etc.
    > I fail to see how LLMs make any of these situations better, care to elaborate?
    By driving the cost of software to zero. I've had great success over the past year or so constructing a whole range of system software, the original "no driver for this printer" complaint Stallman had would be solved with an evening of Claude/Codex/etc usage now (and to prove my point, we just had someone crank out a Linux GPU driver for M4 Apple Silicon using LLMs)
    blagie · 1789733108 · focus · HN ↗
    I guess you had to be around for the reactions to it at the time.
    E.g. the reaction to free software in the nineties was communist/anti-capitalist/idealist/unrealistic.
    It was an extreme fringe movement.
    Now, Linux powers every Android phone, most servers, most routers, and is probably more broadly adopted than all other operating systems, combined.
    That it seems normal speaks volumes to his accomplishments.
    ChickeNES · 1789761542 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think you read my comment?
    > "I should know, I remember classic Slashdot"
    It's still a fringe movement even now, at least the turbo fanatic, FSF disciple kind. It was normal companies like Google adopting Linux that drove adoption, not something Stallman did.
    zrail · 1789673126 · focus · HN ↗
    Disagree. RMS has unapologetically crossed some pretty bright societal lines. Being neurospicy doesn't absolve him of any of that.
    (also I don't think Tourette's is fair to include in that set but whatever)
    blagie · 1789732945 · focus · HN ↗
    Someone with coprolalia will clearly cross some pretty bright societal lines too.
  3. suburban_strike · 1789672105 · focus · HN ↗
    Rebels are rarely pleasant and compliant. Literally everybody that challenges the status quo gets slandered as unpleasant and problematic.
    ChickeNES · 1789674307 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  4. nazgulsenpai · 1789675148 · focus · HN ↗
    This is true for many visionaries throughout history. Also true of many governments, corporations, religions, etc.
  5. account42 · 1789723150 · focus · HN ↗
    Problematic for whom?
4. hydrogen7800 · 1789670491 · focus · HN ↗
  Eventually some of them will be right. Choosing which to heed without hindsight is the problem.
5. Avshalom · 1789671172 · focus · HN ↗
  A) everything you know about Epstein and his circle was already public knowledge after his first conviction 20 years ago.
  B) it wasn't "a group of extremely powerful and rich pedos" it was specifically Hollywood and Democratic elites raping, killing then eating babies (in service of Satan) that they raised in a network of secret tunnels
  1. ParentiSoundSys · 1789671673 · focus · HN ↗
    > everything you know about Epstein and his circle was already public knowledge after his first conviction 20 years ago
    Complete nonsense, a lot of Epstein's deep ties to Silicon Valley and academia weren't even developed until after his conviction, and weren't reported to the public until much later.
    The more lurid takes on Epstein and his network/influence popularized by the QAnon psyop certainly did a lot to encourage everyone to look the other way, but the facts themselves were reported by a handful of responsible and even-keeled gumshoes in fringe/alt media until Julie Brown came along.
6. thrance · 1789674549 · focus · HN ↗
  You were correct to dismiss pizza gate, as it was completely unfounded and pure right wing fantasy about satanist democrats eating babies in a basement.
  Now that we have an actual conspiracy involving the elites of the world in a child sex trafficking ring, the people previously pushing the pizza gate narrative are nowhere to be found. They can't accept that their guy was Epstein's best friend for decades and the second most cited name in the files (after Epstein himself).
  Haven't seen a single republican distance themselves from Trump because of his deep ties with Epstein.
7. VCFundedGenYer · 1789733154 · focus · HN ↗
  Stallman is very problematic, a terrible person, and is the wrong one to deliver this message.
  It may be a correct message, but him delivering it makes it DOA.
GMoromisato · 1789670186 · focus · HN ↗
Just to clarify because my own mental parser failed:
He's not predicting that thousands will die because of mass surveillance--he's saying that the deaths of thousands in the 9/11 attacks are going to let the government deprive millions of their civil liberties.
1. echelon_musk · 1789672505 · focus · HN ↗
  Is English not your first language?
  Thousands dead (in the 9/11 terrorist attacks), millions (soon to be) deprived of liberties.
  1. [deleted] · 1789673049 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
2. globular-toast · 1789677427 · focus · HN ↗
  I had to double check the date. I even saw 2001 in the title but I still think of every post-2000 date as "fairly recent" so didn't make the connection to 9/11.
basisword · 1789670427 · focus · HN ↗
I've never been super alarmist about this stuff. But recently was looking back and it really is staggering the amount of simple freedoms we've lost in the last 25 years. Partly through government overreach for 'security' and partly through technology becoming so pervasive. It really feels like rules get added regularly, and none ever get removed. Things just get stricter. And with technology we add a layer of self/citizen policing of everything. The 'disallowed' but relatively innocent things we could get up to as kids/teenagers just 20 years ago kids today could only dream of.
1. Fnoord · 1789675875 · focus · HN ↗
  Lost, and gained.
  Tor, Tails, Bitcoin, TLS each give freedom. These tools still exist, and still work, and there's a plethora of other tools, too. Something else: security.txt and ethical hacking took off, too.
  Patriot Act, Snowden revelations each made us lose freedoms.
  Yes, I'm aware of Trump's efforts in this regard, but GOP was rotten ever since Bush. Even before that, right-wing populism existed, too. But WWII was still too fresh for fascism to rise in the West.
  Also, law isn't very useful if it isn't applied. For example, copyright law regarding LLMs.
  1. 7e · 1789699271 · focus · HN ↗
    Also, several portions of the original Patriot Act have expired and were not renewed. Just like when Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, wartime powers expand, and then contract in peacetime.
2. quasse · 1789676997 · focus · HN ↗
  As someone who's lived fairly near the Canadian border for ~30 years, yup.
  It's hard to conceive that up until 2008 you could cross the border both ways without a passport. We treated them like the culturally and economically linked neighbors they are. Now it feels like a pointless, hostile interrogation in both directions.
  1. catlover76 · 1789678522 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
iamnothere · 1789670495 · focus · HN ↗
RMS was correct, as usual. Of course he could not have predicted the additional 1 million deaths due to military action (and estimated 3.5 million more from subsequent effects) in the resulting Middle Eastern/Central Asian conflicts over the following years.
1. boxed · 1789670795 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. zardo · 1789671252 · focus · HN ↗
    The high infant death rates in Iraq prior to the global war on terror were also the result of US intervention (by liberals btw).
    <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/watch-madeleine-albright-saying-iraqi-kids-deaths-worth-it-resurfaces-1691193" rel="nofollow">https://www.newsweek.com/watch-madeleine-albright-saying-ira...
  2. [deleted] · 1789671281 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  3. toyg · 1789671675 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm sorry, since when George W. Bush and Donald Trump are "Western liberals"? Western, sure - liberals, the fuck.
    UncleSlacky · 1789673041 · focus · HN ↗
    From <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism :
    "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law."
    Technically both major parties in the US are liberal parties, it's a "liberal democracy" where they both share a certain set of beliefs, though they may differ on the details. Only in the US is the word used as a slur by one party towards the other.
    _heimdall · 1789673737 · focus · HN ↗
    And ironically, neither party uses the word in a way that matches definition.
    The DNC platform isn't particularly liberal, and is moving further from it as/if the DSA gets more of a footing. The RNC complains of "the liberals" are most often complains about policies and ideas that would be more socialist (in the real Marxist sense) than liberal.
    iamnothere · 1789674236 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    toyg · 1789721817 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm European, I know this very well. And still, the absolutist/dictatorial streak in Donald Trump's philosophy of government is something that XIX century liberals would simply abhor. He doesn't believe in consent (and not just "of the governed"), he doesn't believe in individual rights beyond his own... Even just his successful legal moves to obtain full immunity is the exact opposite of "equality before the law".
    (I also disagree that the two US parties share "a certain set of beliefs". This might have been true 15 years ago, but after the Trump takeover it's becoming increasingly difficult to find any common principles between any party and what is effectively a satrapy.)
  4. iamnothere · 1789671736 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  5. iamnothere · 1789672055 · focus · HN ↗
    The “trolley problem” is a toy example for students and people who never developed beyond their educational years. What are you, a utilitarian?
    redsocksfan45 · 1789673575 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  6. didibus · 1789673964 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DTH.IMRT?locations=IQ-US" rel="nofollow">https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DTH.IMRT?locations=I...
    boxed · 1789940017 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean that the deaths are always counted because they are easy to count. But saved lives are not counted because they are harder to count. Look at Korea for example. The death toll in the Korean War is easy to count, and in this case we can see that the armistice was hugely damaging to koreans (namely to the north koreans). We seldom get such clean math as North/South Korea though.
maybewhenthesun · 1789671157 · focus · HN ↗
st iGNUtius called it, amen. :-P
aliasxneo · 1789671309 · focus · HN ↗
Wrote some of my thoughts somewhat related to this recently [1]. I've simply concluded that its a matter of numbers: the more centralized data becomes the easier it is for the government to coerce access. If the government could obtain the data of a million citizens by coercing or engaging in law fare against one or two companies, it's much easier done. If they had to individually coerce, sue, or otherwise hack into those same million customers, it becomes a lot more expensive and difficult. It sucks that's the way it is, but that's why I think the new internet has to reverse the rules and make authorities more particular about who they track rather than just casting a dragnet across N major providers.
[1]: <a href="https://dntls.substack.com/p/the-new-internet" rel="nofollow">https://dntls.substack.com/p/the-new-internet
ParentiSoundSys · 1789671808 · focus · HN ↗
Along the same lines, "Welcome to the New and Improved Police State" by Dave McGowan, September 12 2001: <a href="https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/welcome-to-the-new-and-improved-police-state/" rel="nofollow">https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/welcome-to-the-new-an...
1. jasonkhanlar · 1789675806 · focus · HN ↗
  Informed? How about the 'Informed Trading' that was observed September 10, 2001? Yesterday I transcribed <a href="https://youtu.be/PrI8g3yHxAM" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/PrI8g3yHxAM after having just found and learned about Marc Chesney.
throwitaway222 · 1789673077 · focus · HN ↗
Which liberties were deprived by millions exactly? I think we lost way more in covid.
1. nemomarx · 1789673378 · focus · HN ↗
  The patriot act comes to mind. There are millions of people in the US, and we all gave up some level of privacy in our affairs, so it's straightforward.
  1. throwitaway222 · 1789745990 · focus · HN ↗
    They say there is unlimited reconnaissance at the state level, but not once in my life did a wife or a friend or even an enemy of mine came up and said - I know you were at a bar last night. Shrug. What exactly was told to someone. What was found out?
    Pandemic now, We lost our ability to go into a fucking restaurant for a time.
svidgen · 1789673830 · focus · HN ↗
Whoa ...
... Slashdot still exists?
1. BeetleB · 1789675563 · focus · HN ↗
  I'll make a confession: These days I find Slashdot to be much better curated than HN. Pretty much every day I find something worthwhile on Slashdot. I can't say the same for HN.
  Ironic given that I left Slashdot for HN so many years ago.
  1. em-bee · 1789678493 · focus · HN ↗
    i was an active slashdot reader many years ago. i don't actually remember when/why/ or even where to i left. i guess it's worth taking a look back
    BeetleB · 1789678876 · focus · HN ↗
    I probably left when CmdrTaco left.
  2. rpdillon · 1789688546 · focus · HN ↗
    I've had the same uncomfortable revelation. I probably read Sloshdot for close to 20 years before dropping it exclusively for HN, but now I have it back in my RSS feed and it is consistently producing interesting articles that I would otherwise miss.
2. marssaxman · 1789677470 · focus · HN ↗
  Not only that, alterslash.org still exists.
Thoreandan · 1789673849 · focus · HN ↗
Huh, small world, I'm the one who submitted that to Slashdot.
1. nehal3m · 1789674691 · focus · HN ↗
  CmdrTaco is a cool handle. :-)
  1. meerita · 1789675080 · focus · HN ↗
    I never imagined how to pronounce it until now, "commander taco", isn't? I remember the old days of Slashdot all pools included CmdrTaco in one option.
    unicornops · 1789676604 · focus · HN ↗
    CowboyNeal was the default poll response.
    meerita · 1789692741 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh yes!
  2. cisophrene · 1789675822 · focus · HN ↗
    I think he meant he was Hobart the one that submitted the story. CmdrTaco is Rob Malda who use to run Slashdot and who created the post.
    nehal3m · 1789677710 · focus · HN ↗
    Ah, I see now. Thanks for educating me, it wasn't obvious at a passing glance.
ryanisnan · 1789675591 · focus · HN ↗
> “Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.”
Even though I agree with the premise of the essay, this is absurdly false today. Computers are really good at this type of thing now, scarily so.
1. thomassmith65 · 1789687029 · focus · HN ↗
  Agreed. In fact, the ubiquity and effectiveness of surveillance technology today makes Stallman's "massive surveillance" argument seem stale.
  These days, government surveillance is just a drop in the bucket. Surveillance by private companies and private citizens dwarfs it.
2. edoceo · 1789712635 · focus · HN ↗
  Everytime through TSA they cannot match me to my ID with computer photo thing. After three/four tries they call someone over, who looks at my ID, my face and then says "seems OK". I don't think computers are good at it.
ChrisArchitect · 1789676240 · focus · HN ↗
alt link: <a href="https://www.stallman.org/millions.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.stallman.org/millions.html
7e · 1789699429 · focus · HN ↗
Stallman also wrote that a Jeffrey Epstein victim may have been “entirely willing.” Not a really a great source for anything. If you must cult, cult someone else please.
1. account42 · 1789723905 · focus · HN ↗
  This is in fact not what he wrote. Perhaps you should read what the man wrote rather than what his detractors say he wrote before you condemn him.
  1. lixtra · 1789727025 · focus · HN ↗
    For the interested.
    According to this source[1], RMS wrote:
    > plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing
    [1] <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190913103059/https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20190913103059/https://medium.co...
firmretention · 1789733300 · focus · HN ↗
I can't take RMS seriously any more after he supported Covid vaccine mandates. A closed source printer driver is evil, but forcing people to get a proprietary novel medical treatment from a giant corporation that stands to profit immensely from it is A-OK? His conception of freedom only extends to what HE wishes to be able to do, and whenever there's a conflict with that, he wins. Typical behavior from an extremist.
Source: <a href="https://www.stallman.org/notes/2021-jul-oct.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.stallman.org/notes/2021-jul-oct.html
"Meanwhile, I think that the proposed vaccine mandates for federal workers, military personnel, medical personnel and the work force of some businesses will help. They are a small fraction of the population, but in the delusional states they will help break through the anti-vax pressure."
"Addressing those who call [vaccine mandates] attacks on personal freedom, one doctor said that "people also have a right to be able to go to work and not get infected and not get sick and not die."
Hear, hear. We all have a duty to get vaccinated, except for the small fraction that medically can't do it."
1. ikrenji · 1789752080 · focus · HN ↗
  this post is giving "the 1800s called, they want their smallpox victims back" energy. the entire scientific community agreed covid vaccines are safe, but I suppose you did your own research
2. orion7 · 1789770231 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes. He also regularly shares news articles from five eyes propaganda outlets like the Guardian attacking Russia, Iran, and the Chinese on social media. It's weird to see him fall for and amplify that garbage

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.