The Stallman Report

You haven't read it and you should, maybe it would cut down the paranoia. This is not an attack on the free software movement and this is clearly from people who do care about the free software movement values.

I've skimmed through it and see nothing much to actually be concerned about. We all know Stallman is a rather strange, socially awkward man with some oddball views that go against the grain.

A document berating him for being a weirdo, while shrilly exaggerating all the "evidence" in an effort to destroy him and everything he's built over his lifetime, is not particularly useful or necessary.

The purpose of this is clear, and it's very telling that it's being fired at Stallman from the shadows by the unknown and unaccountable.

Given the subject matter, anonymity is used to protect sources. It's pretty well-understood how people who allege sexual misconduct get disproportionately destroyed by the adversarial process we used to try and find truth in society.

Strange, socially awkward people who make other people uncomfortable to the point of triggering their threat responses tend not to keep their jobs for long in the real world. We even have a name for them: creeps.

There's a reason why codes of conduct, especially the Contributor Covenant, are de rigueur in the open source world. They help keep the creeps and the fash out, and make the work environment more harmonious.

RMS is a creep who's been grandfathered in because he came from a time when creeps were much more tolerated. Times have changed, and so have values. We are far less tolerant of creeps, no matter how talented they may otherwise be because they disrupt the working environment unacceptably. It's time for that grandfather clause to end.

Codes of conducts are political weapons to be used against those disfavored by the powers that be and ignored when the elect violate them.

Drupal and Larry Garfield years ago, and most recently Python and Tim Peters.

It would be great if we could get rid of all the neurodivergent people in tech, they’ve been far too comfortable in digital spaces.

It seems to me that the purpose of this report is not to say "look, that guy is a weirdo". But rather, to point out in excruciating detail how he is enabling vile behaviours (like normalizing possession of CSAM, pretending like making out with 14 year olds is not sexual abuse, etc) in the FOSS community, by being a very visible figure head that some people look up to.

Neurodivergent people can be taught appropriate standards of conduct and basic human respect. Sometimes you gotta spell it out for 'em, that's what the CoC is for. But you don't just give people a pass for making others uncomfortable or afraid "because muh neurodivergence". Especially in a position of leadership. Leading is a skill. If your disability really prevents you from exercising that skill, you don't get that position. Sorry.

You're right in that the type of people hammering RMS with this crap are definitely the same sort that spend their days trying to enforce worthless, harmful and intolerant CoC nonsense. This is all the more reason to ignore them.

As a measure of how trivial the charges against RMS really are, over on Mastodon the post for this report is being replied to by people getting working up about "enbyphobia", of all the who-gives-a-fuck complaints. And being boosted by the account that published this report. No-one should be taking their crap seriously. It's absurd.

At this point it's nothing more than crowdsourced bullying of an old, cancer-stricken man who doesn't deserve any of this. Shame on everyone participating in this mob.

But he isn't enabling any of that. You're spinning a narrative that is fundamentally untrue.

Please read this[1] while keeping in mind that a 14 year old does not fit into Stallman's definition of "child":

> I don't think it is wrong to distribute "child porn" images, even when they [depict] children rather than adolescents. However, making them is wrong if it involves real sex with a child. For the sake of opposing sexual abuse of real children, I suggest that you boycott the images that involve real children. Imaginary children can't be hurt by drawing them.

In other words: pornography involving 14, 15, 16 year olds is all good according to Stallman. He is enabling all of the above by changing the definition of what child pornography is, responding to someone who emailed him asking for advice, and then posting about it publicly.

[1]https://www.stallman.org/articles/witch-hunt.html

That's not what it says at all. In that quote Stallman makes a distinction between pornography that depicts real children and drawings, which he claims hurt no one.

This distinction is also made by the law in the USA, so this quote merely reflects USA law.

You can disagree with this quote and even find it gross, but to claim this quote aims to normalize CSAM is a blatant lie.