
Richard Stallman’s Exit Heralds a New Era in Tech - mancerayder
https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallmans-exit-heralds-a-new-era-in-tech/
======
chaboud
Huh... I read the CSAIL email thread, and it seems like RMS was discussing
distinctions between forcible acts, statutory acts, and coercion by a third
party (e.g. Epstein being, in essence, a human-trafficking pimp...).

RMS seemed to be arguing for clear description instead of jumping to
"everything is child rape".

I don't know exactly where RMS is coming from, but, knowing victims of
forcible and child sexual assault, I think it's still worth maintaining
descriptive, moral, and legal distinctions...

~~~
eesmith
I think Stallman started on the wrong foot. He used his own definition of
"sexual assault" \- one that requires physical violence - when "sexual
assault" generally means something more like "sex with someone without their
consent." He criticized people for using "assault" for something where there
was no described physical violence, and asserted that "sexual assault" was a
meaningless term.

For those who understand "sexual assault" to mean "lack of consent", rejecting
the first term is the same as rejecting the the concept of "consent" in a
sexual relationship.

He could have criticized the term, like how he criticizes the term
"intellectual property", but instead he rejected the term as being meaningful
for this situation. And I want to stress, he used his own (folk) definition
for 'sexual assault' in order to disparage how others were (correctly) using
the term. How can he argue for a clear description when he doesn't even know
that people are using a clear description?

His second wrong foot was in arguing that since age-of-consent laws vary, so
sex between a 73-year-old and a 17-year-old is legal, shouldn't be counted as
completely immoral. However, the same could apply to Epstein's pedophilia, so
this is an indirect support of pedophilia.

Further, this was coerced sex with a minor, so age-of-consent laws don't
apply.

This was all part of a defense of Minsky, who (Stallman argues) wasn't violent
and likely assumed she was willing. That's the third wrong foot - "I thought
she was 18" isn't a legal defense for age-of-consent laws. But really, it's
several feet along the wrong path, as the question is not about age-of-consent
- which may have been legal at the time Minksy visited the VI - but about sex
with a sex slave, or commercial sex with a 17-year-old.

Note that under current VI law, sex between a 70+-year-old and a 17-year-old
is classified as second-degree rape, so while it's true that not everything is
child rape, in this case the distinction is very narrow. And Stallman was not
making narrow arguments about VI law at the time the sex occurred.

Stallman presented what he thought was the most likely scenario, but didn't
consider other scenarios. He assumed that Minsky did have sex with a 17-year-
old.

In his hypothetical scenario, did Stallman think that Minsky did not consider
this was a set-up for blackmail? How many other teens has Minsky had sex with?
Why couldn't it be that Minsky knew that Epstein set him up with a prostitute,
under a plausible deniability arrangement? (Statutory rape laws are set up to
reject a plausible deniability argument.) These seem quite reasonable
questions, but unaddressed.

To get to your comments, the issue is that there _are_ clear descriptions -
well, as clear as anything involving human nature - codified in law and used
in wider discussions on ethics and morality. Stallman doesn't appear to
understand these, and doesn't seem to believe that others do, so he rejects
the basis for complaining about sexual assault at all.

He then talked about it at the wrong place, and the wrong time. What's the
worst that could have happened had he written nothing? Very little. It would
be a footnote in Minsky biographies. But at a time when more and more
unethical behavior at MIT comes to light, well, it's not good timing. Even
worse was his own long history of poor social interactions with women, which
Minsky and the AI lab had helped protect, as well as his standing as the
guiding light behind the free software movement.

With Minsky gone, and the spotlight on the MIT senior staff for their actions,
he no longer had the buffer when he caused that bright light to shine on
himself. I think this can be thought of as a change in the social landscape
causing a "cusp catastrophe".

------
salawat
Read the emails.

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html#document/p20)

Then come back and read what I have to say.

There was nothing offensive or controversial in there. Not a one. The man only
pushed to avoid letting the narrative people wanted to believe run away with
the reputation of a friend (Minsky) before all the facts were in.

He's endorsing to let the justice system do it's work instead of letting a
near tabloid level effort of the media hang a man's reputation out to dry.
He's even willing to accept wrongdoing _if that is what the facts spell out_.
He also asks the more extreme poster to the mailing list to provide evidence
that it seems he is incapable of uncovering due to his commitment to only
using Free Software.

If he's guilty of anything, it's being overconfident of the rationality of
others in a world so tormented by those willing to turn even a hint of
inconvenient independent thought into a sign of some disfigurement of one's
essential humanity.

There are people out there who pose a threat to civil society and deserve
civil/social ostracization. Richard Stallman is not the one in this case, as
is evidenced by a willingness on his part to have his mind changed.

The media, if anyone, deserves to be ostracized for not actually digging into
and presenting the original posts, and picking and choosing only the most
controversial aspects of the man that weave the best narrative to draw clicks.
If they had done their job, this would have been a non-story, as it would be
clear the man was calling for calm in a discussion where passions were running
high.

The FSF, and MIT handled the entire thing poorly. Instead of investigating,
and not doing anything hastily, they caved to engineered histrionics, and also
failed to demonstrate a bare modicum of scrutiny to establish the facts of the
matter, or reach out to correct the media. Essentially they prioritized
distance and public perception over ensuring the truth was known. Both proved
to have betrayed fundamental principles that their respective institutions
were set up to protect.

~~~
pseudalopex
The responses to Stallman on csail-related show that his comments were
controversial and did offend some people even before the media distorted them.

I agree with some of what Stallman said, but he didn't simply encourage
everyone to reserve judgment. He imagined a plausible scenario, argued for a
particular moral interpretation, and emphatically rejected legal definitions.
He called opposing views "absolutely wrong" and "morally absurd". He dug in
when someone suggested that the conversation was unproductive and could
reflect badly on CSAIL.

Why do you believe the FSF and MIT didn't investigate? Many people have called
this the straw that broke the camel's back.

~~~
salawat
>Why do you believe the FSF and MIT didn't investigate? Many people have
called this the straw that broke the camel's back.

To be honest?

If they had, I'd have expected an official rebuttal, and a call for either
calm, or a full retraction.

Since neither has happened, I see it as a duty to dig up, and try to propagate
the facts as far as possible.

To that end a compilation of accusations, rebuttals, and sources follow.

Specifically, Stallman has been accused of

(1) Defending Jeffrey Epstein (while in reality Stallman was defending Marvin
Minsky);

(2) Describing Epstein's victims as entirely willing (while in reality
Stallman was arguing that one specific victim of Epstein, Virginia Giuffre,
was _presented_ to Minsky as entirely willing because she was coerced by
Epstein, not that she _was_ entirely willing);

(3) Defendinf pedophilia (while in reality Stallman was arguing that age
doesn't matter in a case of rape because rape is always a terrible act no
matter the age of the victim);

(4) Defending pedophilia in the past (while in reality Stallman already
countered his controversial claim from 2006 -in which he expressed skepticism
in case of consensual sex- with a comment in 2013, where he said that children
can't really be consensual);

(5) Condoned sexual assault (while in reality Stallman was arguing that the
term "sexual assault" does not fit the description of Minsky's act towards
Virginia Giuffre since she wasn't assaulted by Minsky but coerced by Epstein;
Stallman also added that the term is generally too vague as it refers to bad
acts that can range from harmful to very harmful, and that the term usually
makes readers think of the worst case);

(6) Implying that the victim wasn't harmed (while in reality Stallman
explicitly claimed that she was harmed);

(7) Making comments that are excuses about rape, assault and child sex
trafficking (while he condemned all three as explained above);

(8) Used to keep a mattress in his MIT office, implying sexual activity and/or
macho behavior at work (while in reality Stallman is known to have lived in
his office for a certain period of his life).

As a consequence of these writings, Stallman resigned from his position at MIT
and also from his position at the Free Software Foundation.

Sources in chronological order:

September 12

[https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
fec6ec21...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794)

September 13

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-
sci...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)
[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf)
[https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-
scientist-r...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing) September 14

[https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-
oct.html#14_Septe...](https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-
oct.html#14_September_2019_\(Statements_about_Epstein\))

Septembet 16

[https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
appendix...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-
a-a7e41e784f88) [https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-
relations...](https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relationship-
gnu-fsf/) [https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-
spea...](https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-speak-for-
us/) [https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-
oct.html#16_September...](https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-
oct.html#16_September_2019_\(Resignation\)) [https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-
m-stallman-resigns](https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns)

 _OTHER REFERENCES_ Stallman on his home

[https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html](https://stallman.org/rms-
lifestyle.html)

Stallman on Pedophilia, 2006

[https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-
aug.html#05%20Jun...](https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-
aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29)

Stallman on pedophilia, part deuce, 2013

[https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-
feb.html#04_January_2...](https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-
feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29)

Point being: Let his words/acts stand as they are, and come to your own
judgement.

There is a petition floating around for journalists to own up and post a
retraction (not that anyone is expecting miracles), but if you're against
having the Press straight up spreading lies, consider offering a signature.

[https://www.change.org/p/journalists-to-stop-the-
persecution...](https://www.change.org/p/journalists-to-stop-the-persecution-
of-stallman-and-apologize-
publicly?recruiter=1005025247&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition)

I leave it to every individuals conscience to make of it what they will... I
just know that to me, this entire thing stinks to high heaven. I cannot see
any way in which any of this boondoggle can be remotely said to have happened
in good faith. Spread the word, or just at least make your decision on the
most accurate information possible.

------
pherrephatta
In seeing all the criticism that software developers have been taking lately
over supposed speech transgressions (e.g. Stallman, Torvalds, "Bro",
"Weboob"), I can't help but wonder why technical debates have shifted into
personal ones, what the proper alternative is to the now seemingly much
dreaded meritocratic way of doing things, who truly profits from this change
and in what way do they profit from it?

There's no doubt in my mind that harassment and sexual assault, as well as
discrimination and sexism, really do happen to some individuals. But when you
have narratives being twisted to fit a prescribed perspective, when words and
talk about the semantics of those words as signifiers (such as in Stallman's
case) are interpreted as defense for the object signified by those words, the
line between the aggressor and the aggressee become blurred. That does a lot
more harm to movements FOR victim and AGAINST discrimination, by generalizing
the phenomenon to the point that it loses all relative value it might've had.
If everyone's an aggressor, and every conversation is discriminatory in terms
of potential interpretation, all men, women, non-binary, etc. are affected. It
is debilitating to the highest degree, and no one should defend, let alone
strive to create, such an environment.

If anything, when faced with such situations, we are not discriminatory
enough. As Popper described with his famous paradox of tolerance, tolerance of
intolerance presages the destruction of tolerance itself. He clarifies,
saying: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the
utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by
rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would
certainly be unwise."[0]

I can only hope that people who are outraged by these aforementioned cases of
verbal transgressions have become so because they've misinterpreted what
thought was being communicated. Unfortunately, as they more often than not
work in consulting or have some "acceptance" program to push towards companies
and projects, I can't be certain that they are genuine in their offense.

[0] Karl Popper, Open Society and its Enemies, vol. 1, note 4 to chapter 7.

~~~
Traster
> I can't help but wonder why technical debates have shifted into personal
> ones,

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. Why do engineers think they can
talk about sexual assault in the same way they mull over the pros and cons of
Kubernetes. Which is why, when Richard Stallman is mulling over whether sexual
assault is a real thing, or whether you can really have assault without
violence, it's a nasty place to be. Because the person talking about the issue
very clearly isn't read up on the subject and is talking about (and often to)
people who have actually experienced quite disturbing situations.

~~~
Gibbon1
Your point about assuming competence in one field presumes competence in
another is a good one. One should be very careful about what one uses their
pulpit for.

------
mnm1
Yet another article full of unsubstantiated accusations. This is garbage.
Sorry what has Stallman actually done to alienate women? Surely the silly
abortion joke is not an example of it. So what if he has strange opinions?
Lots of people do. How does that disqualify him from his role? Has he
assaulted or harassed women? Has he actually done something worth of being
forced to resign? If he has it's not in this article or any other one I've
read. Just vague allusions to people growing plants to keep him away. So it's
a popularity contest now? This is garbage reporting. The new era of tech is
unlikely to attract more women. With this kind of mindset, it's unlikely to
attract anyone with a brain, man or woman. I certainly would not want to be
associated with the people who would oust someone because of unrelated
opinions they didn't like. That's the truly disgusting thing here.

------
smadge
First, my comment has nothing to say about Stallman’s problematic behavior or
expulsion of FSF or MIT.

However the article is characterizing free software as a centralized system
whose purpose is to give powerful men the “freedom” to exclude. It also says
the free software movement shares this perverse notion of freedom with the
tech giants like Facebook. Can free software maintainers become exclusionary
tyrants? Of course, but built into free software is the remedy. You have
access to the source control and you are not obligated to tolerate a tyrant.
You have near complete freedom over the source code to make any changes or to
fork the project, completely sidestepping the maintainer. If someone truly
wanted to be a petty tyrant with the “freedom” to exclude they would write
their software as closed source, start a company and maintain complete control
over all versions of the software and hire or fire all of the programmers who
can edit it.

------
moomin
We can hope so. Free Software is needed in today’s society, probably more than
it was needed at its inception. But it needs to be for everyone, and needs new
leaders. I hope this is the start, not the end, of the movement.

~~~
pessimizer
I hope with you, but I doubt. There was nothing keeping new leaders from
emerging before. Stallman never struck me as particularly jealous, just
particular. We might just be witnessing the retirement of the only person with
the single-mindedness and influence to keep the thing going.

~~~
zelphirkalt
This is also something I fear might happen. Let us hope for the best. Someone
with a clear way of making logical arguments, with firm idea about free
software, furthering the original goals.

------
ourlordcaffeine
>This is a lesson we are fast learning about freedom as it promoted by the
tech world. It is not about ensuring that everyone can express their views and
feelings. Freedom, in this telling, is about exclusion. The freedom to drive
others away.

This seems to be presenting opinion as fact.

From a software perspective though, I would argue that yes, I should
absolutely have the freedom to reject a change in my code from someone else.
The rejected party has the freedom to fork my code.

------
kd3
Yeah, a new era of brain damage, irrationality and emotions winning over
facts. Congratulations.

~~~
verroq
It is truely 2019 when Stallman gets nailed for something he didn’t say, while
Wired, Vice and god knows how many medium blogs celebrate this as “progress”.

~~~
rpiguy
Nobody expects the Inquisition.

~~~
zzzcpan
I think it's pretty obvious that US propaganda and censorship machine pushed
into tech at full force in the last couple of years, with all the
manufacturing consent at all levels. When they forced codes of conduct,
inquisition was already kind of expected.

~~~
rpiguy
Is Monty Python lost on this generation?

~~~
zzzcpan
> Is Monty Python lost on this generation?

Could you elaborate? Looks like a UK television thing from the 70s. I'm not
familiar with UK television culture references.

~~~
bsaul
it’s a cult comedy TV program from the UK. They had a very special kind of
humor, with a strong taste for the absurd.

In one of their sketch, spanish inquisitors would just pop out of nowhere and
start wrecking havoc. Hence saying « nobody expects the spanish inquisition ».

You know something has reached a high level of absurdity whenever it makes you
think of one of monty python’s program.

------
thosakwe
I would argue that a so-called "new era" has already begun, regardless of
whether Stallman is physically the chair of any organization. So much time has
passed since the formation of the FSF, and (though HN likes to pretend
otherwise), tech doesn't exist in a bubble.

Different issues are driving decisions today than were a few decades ago;
that's just the flow of time. I don't think it's a bad thing at all that
standards and goals have changed.

I think this "new era" began with the rise of FAANG companies, so really,
these trends have been in motion for a while. I'm excited what new
developments in AR/VR, AI, compiler theory, etc. will come in the approaching
years.

------
frabbit
_He asks her out on a date. She says no. He moves on._

Is the Wired article mis-representing the gist of Christine Corbett Moran's
complaint?

Or is the author subtly trying to undermine her?

~~~
kd3
What was her complaint exactly? Are men not supposed to ask her out?

~~~
AgentOrange1234
Uh, it’s certainly not appropriate to ask someone you’ve just met at a
technical conference to go on a date with you.

~~~
Freak_NL
Why not? It's a bit direct and perhaps odd and unexpected, but also polite,
possibly flattering, and a very decent way of taking a chance on getting to
know someone who you will likely not meet again unless you take action,
better. If the response to the rejection of that offer is polite and
professional, then how is this inappropriate?

~~~
filoleg
As one of the people he asked out mentioned, his response to the rejection was
anything but appropriate (he threatened to kill himself) [0].

0\. [https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
appendix...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-
a-a7e41e784f88)

------
bjourne
"Future Change Warning: Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit
us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function.
We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating
a program."

Is the above comment in the glibc manual something to be upset about? I don't
understand why.

~~~
pseudalopex
The glibc maintainers removed it because a dated oblique joke didn't help
anyone use glibc. People got upset when Stallman demanded they revert the
change and refused to compromise.

~~~
bjourne
Makes sense. When reading the article I thought it implied that the joke was
offensive. Apparently, it was Stallman's insistence on preserving the joke
that was the problem, not the joke itself.

~~~
pseudalopex
Some maintainers thought it could bring up painful memories or seem like it
was mocking the reader's beliefs. That came up after Stallman insisted on
putting it back in, though. The original consensus was just that it was badly
written and out of place.

------
prepend
Certainly now tech is finally free to be inclusive. I look forward to the
wonderful surge of commits from people who didn’t feel welcome enough to send
in their code.

Has Freeer Software Foundation been started yet?

~~~
Barrin92
What commits did Stallman make after gcc and emacs? He was a pontificating
creep and mothing more for decades. The software world will be better off with
people in charge who don't endorse politically absolutist creeds or are so
socially maladjusted that they make every woman in a ten feet radius
uncomfortable. We don't need people who think defending child abusers or
pedophilia is appropriate in this community.The only scandal about this is
that he wasn't ousted fifteen years ago.

~~~
prepend
We?

------
craigsmansion
Someone took the time to actually sift through all the accusations and put
them in context.

[https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/index.html](https://sterling-
archermedes.github.io/index.html)

This is only about the publications on medium, Vice, and The Daily Beast, not
this new one in Wired, who apparently also discovered there's good money in
selling pyres.

------
mancerayder
What's flagged about this Wired article?

~~~
x3n0ph3n3
I suspect the mods don't like these comments treading into the Culture War
conversation.

~~~
mancerayder
I probably agree with the mods but how is that the article author's fault?
Downvote the comments.

------
bsaul
I believe this trend of prefering moral purity over professional qualities
will reach its tipping point when cancer doctors will get fired for making
inappropriate comments to female coworkers. At this point we'll start to get
serious about what constitutes fireable behaviors and what just makes you a
prick.

I sincerely hope we'll reach that point very soon.

~~~
stallmanite
I mean who wants their cancer cured by a misogynist?

/s

------
zelphirkalt
> Later, he becomes so enthralled by his vision that he excuses—and is excused
> for—all the wreckage around him. Sound familiar? Is Mark Zuckerberg—the
> brilliant young man who dreamed of connecting the world and instead made
> everyone isolated and angry—very different? Is Sergey Brin or Larry Page?

Hahaha! Oh my, what utter crap. Zuckerberg, when did he ever show a true
conviction to some higher ethical standards? Where is the positive ingenuity
in anything Zuckerberg created? Is there even one thing that man did, that has
not turned out to be an abomination? Tell me, what that man did, that
_positively_ influenced anything besides human greed and his own wallet. That
comparison is the most laughable that I heard in a loong time.

Up to that point, I already had a feeling about the tone of the article, but
this then finally shows, that the author does not even know what they are
writing about. The article is rubbish.

If there is wreckage around Stallman, then it is caused by him expressing
himself in ways, which people tend to misunderstand, although he argues quite
mathematically, maybe it is especially, because he does so. He does not care
about gender stuff. He cares about what is getting done. Today's socialization
is _unfortunately_ in a way, that not _many_ women get into computer science.
When he then states something about more men contributing code to some
project, he is making a mathematical statement about numbers, not about a
gender issue. Why are people unable to understand that? Here is a typical
example of people not being able to understand him and his way of making a
logical argument: [https://youtu.be/eG4HrOpzQXY](https://youtu.be/eG4HrOpzQXY)

I very much doubt, that Stallman is in general against women in tech or
anything similar claimed in the article and have never seen him saying
anything like that. Seriously, what kind of crap about "female professors
keeping plants, because Stallman does not like plants". Go to any office,
where women work and check for plants. It is called socialization. We don't
have to like it, but saying, that it does not exist, is certainly not going to
help solving the issue.

Then we have the usual stupid writing going on about how the OS might be
called "Linux", but Stallman wants it to be called "GNU/Linux". As if he was
the only one person in the world wanting that. Download Linux and from the
repositories and run your computer with that! What is wrong with these people?
Can't they acknowledge _years_ of work in his youth and later on, basically
life, this man put into creating something, that now they rely on every single
day of their comparatively unproductive lives? Can we stop being uninformed
and call the OS the name of the kernel? Can we prevent uninformed authors from
writing more articles about tech, so that technically correct terms can
finally win over wrong usage and being uninformed and work done is finally
given appropriate credit?

The ungratefulness some people show towards Stallman is just so unbelievable.

Well, should not have expected a fair account from magazines like Wired in the
first place.

------
riazrizvi
> This is a lesson we are fast learning about freedom as it promoted by the
> tech world. It is not about ensuring that everyone can express their views
> and feelings. Freedom, in this telling, is about exclusion. The freedom to
> drive others away. And, until recently, freedom from consequences.

Disagree with the author here. Freedom in the tech world and indeed in the 1st
Amendment is absolutely about the right to express objectionable views. The
problem was that historical cultural norms permitted misogynistic bigots to
maintain positions of power - it was a lack of political coordination to root
out these leaders. Now there is a political wave driving sexual equality. But
just like we learned with racism after Obama’s election, these things don’t
move in one direction, they are wars, Trump is still in the Whitehouse and his
poll numbers aren’t too bad. So if you care about the long term improvement of
sexual equality, best to follow a laser sharp political strategy and discern
that a principle like freedom of speech brings allies to the cause, it helps
far more than it harms.

Free speech means permitting people to say hurtful things. We should protect
everyone’s opportunity to reveal who they are. The main focus should be on
what we do with that information.

------
Traster
It's going to be very interesting to hear from Hacker News about this.

------
thrower123
It's a little unsettling that there is such an effort to give more importance
to Stallman now, in his disgrace, than he ever had in reality.

He'd reached the point of being nearly forgotten until he shot his mouth off
inopportunely and caught the full force of the outrage mob.

~~~
adrianN
In my filter bubble RMS was getting more and more important as more and more
of his predictions became true. Now more than ever are software freedoms at
risk, thanks to Software As A Service Substitute. I find it sad that his
career ends in this way and hope that his legacy will live on.

