The Harder They Try to Censor, the Bigger the Scandal (and the Impact) Will Be
We've got all the time in the world to tell our story
This coming week we plan to publish a lot more about the EPO and the OSI as part of a series entitled "The Fall of the Open Source Initiative (OSI)" (introductory part, part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 plus addenda in [1, 2]). There is a lot to be said and done. We expect strong impact and strange things to be attempted in order to interfere with publication (we probably have a thousand articles on the way explaining what was attempted against us already*).
The OSI 'elections' (yes, scare quotes) show more overlaps between Microsoft front groups and the OSI. No need to name any names here... but it's obvious. It's right there in the affiliations.
The OSI is, in turn, connected to Debian. In many ways.
We don't plan to self-censor our coverage; sometimes we just delay publication a little.
It's hard to silence people who know certain things and possess the skills to clearly write about those things. So all the antagonists can do is troll, slander, intimidate, and try to hurt family.
They tried the same thing many times against Daniel Pocock, who still writes about it**.
What the aggressors fail to realise is that each single attempt to silence the messenger will become a scandal in its own right. The messenger will not only write about it but also speak about it, even at the UN.
Some time later today we plan to publish the next part of "The Fall of the Open Source Initiative (OSI)" (if not today, then tomorrow). █
_________
* We sort of got accustomed to it by now. We get it. They want to silence us, but mere desires to do so aren't enough. In this case [1, 2], I didn't signal I'd settle and walk away; I never would; I fought back and filed a counter-claim, as did my wife, but clearly this may not scale (time spent) and it also slows me down, distracting from activity like finding news links and publishing articles, putting aside financial aspects.
** They try to stage some psychological warfare. When that does not have leverage over the target, then they start doing the same to family members of the target. They try to make the person miserable, distracted, unproductive, poorer, maybe altogether give up, shut down the whole platform/site (in Pocock's case, they hijacked many of his domains).