[ip34162]

FOSS doesn't depend on the FSF Board. There are many in the FOSS community that want RMS removed.

https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/23/outreachy-fsf/

https://rms-open-letter.github.io/

. .

Also the FSF members weren't made aware of RMS's comeback. That's shitty behaviour.

https://twitter.com/fsf/status/1374399897558917128

. .

Partial reasons as to why this is happening:

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545420

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535789

[bondarchuk]

I don't believe those are the actual underlying reasons. This kind of smear campaign is just a means to an end.

RMS is anti-corporate and pro end-user. Free software has turned out to be immensely useful for big corporations, but mostly because it's free, not because it empowers the end-user. You would expect leftists to be in favour of empowering the end-user, but evidently not. I think it's because RMS is an old-style anarchist type leftist, while these new social justice type leftists are rather authoritarian and allied to big corporations as such.

[throw0101a]

Contra:

> The idea that someone who does enough "good work" earns a pass for inappropriate behaviour is pervasive, and fosters environments where abusers can prosper. People who hold this belief shouldn't be involved in running organisations.

* https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1374093150101200896

Other folks who did a lot of philanthropy: Jeffrey Epstein, David Koch, the Sackler family (of opioid epidemic noterietay), Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, Michael Pearson, Raj Rajaratnam, Bernard Madoff, Ken Lay (of Enron).

* https://www.worth.com/the-10-most-toxic-philanthropists/

* https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/harvey-weinstei...

[bondarchuk]

I don't know why you are saying this to me, it is not related to anything I've said in this discussion.

[throw0101a]

You wrote:

> RMS is anti-corporate and pro end-user. Free software has turned out to be immensely useful for big corporations, but mostly because it's free, not because it empowers the end-user. You would expect leftists to be in favour of empowering the end-user, but evidently not.

"Leftists" may be for empowering the end-user, but they may not be for allowing someone a pass on certain behaviours just because they happen to share values/principles.

[caeril]

After seeing every single member of the Fortune 500 shill for BLM last summer, this analysis rings true. Corporate power doesn't care about black lives, as several of the most adamant BLM shills run business models predicated significantly on black lives dying in cobalt mines and/or the associated sectarian wars over resources, or on busting unions of largely African immigrant labor.

Similarly, it's laughable to think that the FOSS community members who work for Apple, IBM, Amazon, Google, or anyone else on that list would give a single shit about some socially-inept guy making awkward passes at women while they quietly endorse whatever China feels like doing to the Uyghurs or Hong Kong dissidents, and quietly cover up the endless sexual harassment scandals of their own C-suites.

It's never been about social justice. Social Justice is a convenient tool they've found to further entrench their naked power. Don't think for half a second that they wouldn't immediately ditch it to support Hitler Part Deux if their internal strategy analysis indicated that doing so would gain them more power, control, and profits.

[verall]

People act like BLM asked for the corporate shilling. They asked for police reform. Corporations saw a chance to sell a little bit of virtue signal to Middle America.

[jeegsy]

Consensus is difficult to assess or believe when the price of dissent is so very high.