I can't take seriously an article that takes about socialist software engineers and never once mentions or at least hints at Stallman, the FSF, Chaos Computer Club, or many other people and movements that could be considered either straight out socialist or heavily inspired.
There's a substantial difference between a socialist and a libertarian despite them both being "leftists". Stallman is clearly the latter.
Socialist: harmonious society is the highest value
Libertarian: personal liberty is the highest value
These frequently come into conflict. For example, a socialist would support policies that benefit the collective (e.g. new rules), while the libertarian will frequently oppose them because they incur a cost to individual liberty.
Left-libertarianism is a subset of socialism. Socialism is a wide umbrella term for multiple economic systems that put the people doing the work in charge of the workplace. It has nothing directly to do with a 'harmonious society'
Arbitrary labels aside, my point stands that it is ridiculous to conflate "socialist" and someone who opposes social programs and a robust society by opposing the public governments that are necessary to implement such things on a large scale, because "privacy" is the highest virtue.
What exactly is "socialist" about Stallman, aside from him not being a US Republican and disliking Big Tech?
For example, a radically socialist policy would be that "social ownership" should extend to some amount of personal information, to increase accountability, cohesion, trust, etc. But Stallman would vehemently oppose this.
"Libertarianism" was originally an adjective used for the more anarchist-leaning socialists. It was later appropriated by right-leaning property fetishists.
