/tech/ - Technology

>>13257 (OP)
>tourmalinetaco 5 days ago

>It’s not a double standard to take the context of a writer’s desires in with their work, especially when they are actively trying to depose someone as important as RMS, and especially when the information is not accurate. What is a double standard though, based off of accurate in-context information, is that Drew DeVault is accusing RMS of pedophilia while he has a history of looking at and collecting drawings of bikini-clad prepubescent girls[0] and having VERY suspicious opinions disregarding minor female body autonomy[1].

>[0] = https://web.archive.org/web/20131007121950/http://www.reddit.com/user/sircmpwn (specifically “Kaname [Madoka] in her swimsuit”. I assume the rules regarding linking to what is legally considered drawn CSAM is rather harsh, so for those who need proof of said claims Pixiv utilizes an ID string on every URL, and the “Sauce” hyperlink will direct you to it.

>[1] “I'm of the opinion that 14 year old girls should be required to have an IUD installed. Ten years of contraception that requires a visit to the doctor to remove prematurely.” - https://web.archive.org/web/20130523180641/http://www.reddit.com/user/sircmpwn


>bringen 5 days ago

>Your second link is worth reading again, seems it has had some rather concerning updates in the past day or two.

>A post from that thread, linked below, is currently highlighted on that site's front page with the title "An open letter libeling Richard Stallman as a pedophile was probably written by Drew DeVault, a progressive open-source developer who has 10 years of history posting lolicon on reddit":

>https://kiwifarms.net/threads/drew-chadwick-devault-ddevault-sircmpwn.175606/post-19604441

>It describes various of Drew's online habits over the years, including sharing artwork of prepubescent children in swimsuits. Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable non-pedophilic reason for this, and I do hope Drew will return to the comments here once more to explain.

>Either way, with this in mind, it places this section of Drew's report in a rather different context:

>https://stallman-report.org/#support-for-the-possession-of-child-sexual-abuse-material


So the bourgs are so certain in their power position th@ they pushed a notorious bullet-asking pedofaggot scumfuck to frame Stallman as a pedo, just 2 flex on everybody.

We've been discussing it here:
>>13230

Thankfully the culprit was exposed quickly and isn't garnering a lot of sympathy. It looks like this is going to fizzle out more quickly this time, especially after the controversy just ignited over the US attacking worldwide free software collaboration.

Looks like wreckers are still wrecking.
>invite kind old man to give talk about software freedom
>immediately turn around and kowtow to bully demands of cancellation while hiding behind "inclusivity"

https://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2025/news/2025-05-06_0002-keynote-announcement-richard-stallman/
https://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2025/news/2025-05-07_0001-keynote-will-not-go-forward/

>>13489
Embarrassing

>>13257 (OP)
why are FSF and Stallman even considered synonymous, it's not like he even has much more than a loose association as the guy who writes free software rants. FSF does many things which don't involve Stallman at all.

>>13494
>why are FSF and Stallman even considered synonymous
The FSF bases its software philosophy on Stallman's writings. It was Stallman who came up with the four software freedoms.

>>13494

Like >>13495 said

it's just an advocacy group for Stallman's software opinions. Always has been. Trying to root out Stallman is therefore trying to just bludgeon the org to death. Which failed, but they did make Stallman a bit more insufferable and radlib in the process.

There's all sorts of valid criticisms of Stallman but what >>13257 (OP)
OP is talking about happened in 2019. That is mostly over now, he went through the cancel culture ringer, and hoards of people in the corporate/media friendly "open source" people were gleeful to attack the most radical thinker in the adjacent free software movement

>>13518
>hoards of people in the corporate/media friendly "open source" people were gleeful to attack the most radical thinker in the adjacent free software movement

This was basically a takedown of the ideas that free software stands for in order to shove privatized shit down your throat. I know this because Linux is getting inexplicable hate online even on places like /g/. This is probably manufactured since Linux has been gaining traction in the desktop market recently, mainly because everyone is finally fed up enough with Windows.

Once they paint users of Linux as some cringe fandom it's easy to steer the cattle back behind the fence.