Planet Debian: only 'happy' stories permitted? Criticism of sponsors not allowed? That would amount to censorship on sale (to those who try to 'herd' unsalaried coders).

Summary: Free software and Software Freedom cannot possibly succeed if we keep accepting or even just tolerating systematic censorship of opinionated people in our community; failing to speak out on this matter (for fear of supposedly offending someone, risking expulsion) is part of the problem -- complicity by passivity

THIS is 2020. Many people now conflate "free speech" with stuff like racism and even worse things. Sometimes even whistleblowers who say the hard truth are being denied a voice, under the false pretenses that this somehow "defames" a project or employer (last night I read a document to that effect and it astounded me).

"It's quite likely that somebody out there can make an allegation that we infringe some rules of violate some Code of Conduct; but so what, who made up those rules? And whose interests are promoted/served by such rules?"Justice requires freedom of expression and transparency. Introspection requires speech without fear (of unwarranted consequences). Free software developers who cannot safely express a political view -- however unpopular it may be among some groups -- don't really enjoy freedom.

Over the past year or two we've seen numerous high-profile people being 'cancelled' or partly gagged because they expressed an opinion, either about bad code/conduct -- sometimes inside the workplace (personal life) -- or something like a bribe in the professional context. It's hardly surprising that Debian outsourced some of the development pipeline to Google (check who the biggest sponsor is), the Linux Foundation flexed its muscles against the person who 'merely' created Linux, and the FSF treats its very own founder like "grumpy racist uncle/grandpa" who needs to be kept silent or read pre-approved scripts. Notice how he (RMS) is not doing any interviews about Free software anymore (hardly any since 2019) and it seems like he's reluctant or actively obstructed. I sometimes feel/sense he wants to do an interview with us and then changes his mind because he's afraid to (like someone else isn't approving that). The "social control media" mob and the FSF (especially Guix petitioners in GNU) silenced our #1 advocate. In RT and elsewhere RMS only speaks (however seldom) about cryptocurrencies, privacy etc.

Earlier this month "DMCA Sucks" released this old video of RMS (almost 20 years old, actually released two decades late).

When tackling corporate crimes and a coup against your movement you're bound to come across as 'abrasive' while reacting. It is expected.

People who have read Techrights since 2006 (there are quite a lot of them; they still follow and support us because we don't self-censor and we value honesty, facts, truth) very well know that we're quite unspoken about injustices. It's quite likely that somebody out there can make an allegation that we infringe some rules of violate some Code of Conduct; but so what, who made up those rules? And whose interests are promoted/served by such rules? They might soon tell us that the word "serve" is also dirty and that "servers" need to be rebranded to avoid causing offence (some already refer to them as "clouds")...

Under the guise of "manners" we have corporate and oligarchic censorship imposed and enforced upon us.

Quite frankly, we need RMS to be liberated. He needs to speak out freely, as he used to do until the Bill Gates/Epstein scandal in MIT made the press (so media distraction became more necessary, both for MIT and for Gates). With few exceptions, the media right now is cheerleader and salesman (vaccines) for the Gates Foundation; it's a mouthpiece for truly awful people who profit a lot from COVID-19 while those of us who rent an apartment after 30+ years of fighting for freedom struggle in a pandemic. This isn't justice, this isn't right. ⬆