this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
1059 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
59358 readers
6668 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This has nothing to do with open source. If Russians want to work on the Linux kernel, they're absolutely free to do so, because the source code is free and open source. What they are being restricted from is getting their changes submitted to the normal Linux foundation trees. FOSS doesn't mean you're entitled to have the maintainer of a project look at your patches, it means you can use the software however you want.
And yeah, it makes me sad that Russian kernel maintainers are being excluded. That doesn't mean it's a violation of open source philosophies (a maintainer can exclude anyone they want for any reason), it just means it's an unfortunate policy due to international sanctions.
Russians aren't restricted from getting their changes submitted, they just can't be maintainers. This means that they need another maintainer to approve their changes, just like if you or me were to submit a change. A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding what actually happened.
I actually just emailed RMS about this and I'm genuinely curious what he says. If anyone else is interested, I'll ask if he's fine with me sharing some of the response.
Oh yes, an update would be really interesting! (Even though I agree with @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works in all points.)
My opinion on this whole topic: I don't like the decision, a Free Software project should only prevent people from contributing in very rare occasions (e.g. having actively tried to sabotage the project). I don't think this was the case, because I presume that the Linux Foundation was forced by the U.S. government to kick the maintainers out. The should've also communicated more clearly to prevent the confusion. (Russian trolls will cry out no matter how they phrased that.)
Edit: Depending on their power as a maintainer, they might be hired by intelligence and forced to just wave a backdoor through. With the Russian government waging a hybrid war against the U.S. and Europe, this poses a real problem.
Another Edit: @Allero@lemmy.today mentioned that apart from Russia, the U.S., Israel and China also have a very well funded intelligence service. So banning Russian maintainers because of a potential backdoor when there are American maintainers (which could be agents) as well? I don't think it makes sense, but unfortunately the Linux Foundation won't be able to resist the "complience requirements".
Just what we need. The opinions of someone who thinks having sex with children is a good thing.
He never said that. I agree he was more skeptical than I'd like, but he eventually was informed and apologized.
You are mistaken:
RMS on June 28th, 2003
RMS on June 5th, 2006
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013
None of those say it is good. I disagree with him, he also disagrees with him and apologized for saying that. But that is very different from saying its good. I don't think alcohol is good, I also don't think it should be illegal.
Huh?
He said it's a shame that paedophilia is outlawed and that it was narrow-mindedness that made it so.
He said it's untrue that having sex with children harms them.
And yeah, he later apologised and said he doesn't believe it anymore... 2 days after his job became on the line.
Ask yourself this:
A man has been publicly championing raping children for decades. Publicly. He firmly believes he should have the right to fuck children.
News media hears about this, and now his job seems untenable.
All of a sudden, the man claimed changed his mind, that he's completely reversed his opinion (that he held for decades and publicly shouted to the world). In just 2 days, he's gone from thinking it's a tragedy that you can't fuck children, to thinking fucking a child is bad.
Do you believe him? Or do you think he's just saying anything he can to try to keep his job?
There's a big difference between "it's unfortunate that adults can't fuck children, it really should be legalised. People against fucking toddlers are just bigots" and "well I don't like alcohol, but I think it should be legal"
How you just equated raping a child and drinking a glass of wine is beyond me. Wow.
First of all, none of those things are saying its good.
I think you need to be more realistic about who he and others are and try to understand why they have the beliefs they do, a lot of them are differences in personal and social awareness/ability. An analogy(I know you struggle with these, sorry its just the way I communicate and explain my thoughts), but would you look at someone with dyslexia and use them struggling with reading as an excuse to completely invalidated their opinions and views on everything else?
Stallman has deeply ideological beliefs, one of them being radical freedom of choice. He looked at pedophilia through that, because that's what his conception of the world(and therefore ability to perceive it) allows. To be totally blunt I think its an "autistic" struggling with understanding the feelings of others(that many on here and Reddit also have) that lead to him focusing on his ideological perspective. I think he "put himself in the shoes" of kids, and thought, "I want to be able to engage in consensual relationships" he didn't consider that not everyone is him, or how he would feel in circumstances different from ones he's experienced. This combined with his ideological conviction made him fail to understand how kids lack an ability to consent.
If he really apologized to keep his job, I don't know. But he has and continues to say deeply controversial things that cost him opportunities. He also still leads Gnu and FSF. I think its possible he just was upset about the situation, talked to someone he trusts about why people are responding this way, and they explained it in a way he could understand and he changed his mind.
I did not equate them. But also don't underestimate the damage alcohol has had on the world. Child rape is bad, I have never denied that.
He literally says it's bad that child rape is illegal, then goes on about how if you're against it you're a bigot. In what world is that not him saying it's good?
Saying you believe his is autistic is a disgusting defence. Being autistic doesn't excuse believing it's a good thing to have sex with children. Autistic people don't believe that.
Yes you did equate them.
Having a glass of wine and pinning down your toddler and fucking him are NOT the same. Jesus Christ.
And Stallman doesn't think the same. He thinks it's good.
And yeah. You think it's as bad as sipping a pint of ale...
Because they're different things? Again this is why I said the analogy. Saying prohibition of alcohol is bad is different from saying alcohol is good. That's not equating alcohol and pedos, its an analogy on how saying something is good is different from saying it shouldn't be illegal.
Its an explanation of why I think he might have had an opinion I think is disgusting. The defense is that he admitted he was wrong and apologized. Having a wrong belief isn't a crime, he didn't rape any kids, so he doesn't have anything to be "punished" for. And being wrong in the past about ethics is completely different from beliefs on free software- and you know that. You're just using it as an ad hominem.
What? There are plenty of autistic people that have a wide variety of beliefs
No I didn't, stop lying about me. Analogy is not equating, I have no clue why this has to be explained.
He did not say its good, and he does now think the same as he said.
I am tempted to think you're trolling seeing as you're ignoring what I actually wrote and instead just going for cheap attacks. Please stop engaging in bad faith.
He says people are bigoted if they're against people fucking children. That's him saying having sex with children is a good thing.
Agreed. However if you said "I think it's unfortunate alcohol is banned. If you are against consuming alcohol then you are a bigot." Then that instead points to you believing alcohol is good.
Yes it is.
No it fucking isn't. Having mild autism is not an explanation for thinking pinning down a four year old and giving them some dick is a good thing.
He believes that because he's a sick fuck who believes in paedophilia. Not because of autism. Autism doesn't make you like that at all.
Yep, I've already covered this. He did a complete 180 2 days after it became apparent his job was on the line. It wasn't genuine remorse, it was a last-ditch effort to save his own skin.
Being autistic doesn't cause you to believe raping kids is a good thing. Stop pretending it does. You must really hate autistic people if you're willing to paint them with that brush.
Yes you did.
Having a glass of wine is not like fucking a four year old. Stop.
Yes he did. And his opinion has not changed.
I hope you're trolling, because if not you're a fucking psychopath who denies genocide and thinks keeping a toddler as a sex slave is morally equivelant to having a Heineken, and that both should be equally legal.
Please for the love of god be a troll.
Here's an analogy there is no way you can lie about(though you'll probably find a way): Saying someone is bigoted if they make fun of arachnophobia is not the same thing as saying arachnophobia is good. And I'm not equating arachnophobia to pedos. Opposing opposition to X is not the same thing as supporting X, its possible to be neutral on X. I'm not neutral on pedos, I think pedos are bad and gross. I think it is wrong to be neutral on pedos, but it is factually inaccurate to say that being "neutral on X" == "X is a good thing".
Thank you!!!! This makes me so happy genuinely!!! You responded to what I actually said!! So you did get it! So why do you keep lying about it?
Anyways, my excitement aside, you're fine to think that. But I do disagree that that's the analogy of what you're saying Stallman said, instead it would be closer to "I think it’s unfortunate alcohol is banned. If you are against letting people consuming alcohol then you are a bigot.”
Which is not necessarily pro-alchohol. Another example, imagine a government that banned a religion, say Buddhism, you could say "I think it’s unfortunate Buddhism is banned. If you are against letting people practice Buddhism then you are a bigot.”- that statement is not necessarily pro-Buddhist, its just anti-prohibition of Buddhism.
Awww my excitement is gone
It literally is an explanation. You're free to think the explanation is wrong and bad, but its still an explanation.
I didn't say it was because of autism. I said its because he failed to empathize with victims, yk a symptom of "autism".
He's still fired from MIT so why doesn't he backtrack if he still believes it?
Never said it does, stop lying about me.
My pain is immeasurable. Please quote where I said those exact words.
Why'd he stop saying it then?
Genuinely why are you still responding if you honestly believe that's what I said? Just to insult me?
I don't hide behind a pseudonym to be toxic to people on the internet.
Why do you keep lying about this? He repeatedly defended raping children.
He thinks raping children should be legal.
He thinks anybody against raping children is bigoted.
He thinks raping children is good.
Stop equating drinking alcohol to raping a child. They aren't comparable.
I'm being toxic? Mate you're being an apologist for genocide and child rape. I'm not the toxic one here.
I'm not, you are the one lying about what I said.
Yep, and that was very bad, and I never denied that. I denied that he said it was good.
Thought*
Thought*
He never said that
I didn't.
You're intentionally lying about what I said as an excuse to insult me rather than actually respond to what I said.
No I'm not
No, he thinks raping children is a good thing.
Saying "thought" implies he no longer does.
Yes you are.
Again, he never said that.
He claims he no longer does, can you read his mind?
Quote what exactly I said that was either of those things.
He did say that.
Do you believe he suddenly changed his mind on an opinion he held and shouted to the world, 2 days after it became apparent he might lose his job over it?
If someone committed fraud, then went to court and said "your honour, I actually agree with you. Fraud is wrong. I came to that conclusion this morning." would you believe them?
It's what all of your comments have been about. Don't play dumb.
Why didn't he reverse then? He's never seemed shy about sharing his opinions before.
An opinion however gross isn't a crime.
I never said it, that's why you can't quote it
He did reverse, that's my point.
Never said it was. Now can you answer the question. Would you believe this person was genuine?
You've said it constantly. Child rape isn't ok.