Working for Freedom Makes You a Target
In Social Control Media controlled by scammy broligarchs they discussed the "FSF [sic] consider[ing] large language models". Of course the comments discussed neither the FSF nor LLMs and instead started attacking the FSF's founder. Here's one reply to the feeding frenzy from slop boosters (like the people who own and censor/curate/moderate this Social Control Media site): "
No, the reason why this "second cancellation" is vague is because it was the typical feeding frenzy that happens after a successful cancellation, where people hop on to paint previously uninteresting slanders in a new light. Stallman, before saying something goofy about Epstein, was constantly slandered by people who hated what he stood for and by people that were jealous of him. After he said the goofy thing, they all piled in to say "you should have listened to me." The "second cancellation" is when "he asked me out once at a conference" becomes redolent of sexual assault.
None of them seem to like the politics of Free Software, either. They attempt to taint the entire philosophy with the false taint of Stallman saying that sleeping with older teenagers that seemed to be consenting isn't the worst crime in the world. The people who attacked him for that would defend any number of intimately Epstein-related people to the death; the goal imo was to break (or to take over and steer into a perversion of itself) Free Software. Every one of them was the "it's not fair to say that about Apple" type."
Further, someone responded: "The thing that defines awkward behavior is being unable to read those signs. Conversely what makes someone charming is that they're better than average at reading those signs. So the standard as you've stated if we take it literally seems to reiterate the idea that some behavior from charming people is acceptable but from awkward people is not. But it also sounds like that is not what you intend, is that correct? It's also unclear how someone would learn to read those signs if the standard for acceptable behavior is already being able to read them. It seems like you'd need to build in the idea that learning a skill requires some failure trials."
Someone then gave an example of the hypocrisy:
These measures are not applied equally though.Deb Nicholson, PSF "Executive Director", won an FSF award in 2018, handed to her by Stallman himself. Note that at that time at least one of Stallman's embarrassing blog posts was absolutely already known:
https://www.fsf.org/news/openstreetmap-and-deborah-nicholson...
In 2021 Deb Nicholson then worked to cancel Stallman:
[redacted]
In 2025 Deb Nicholson's PSF takes money from all new Trump allies, including from those that finance the ballroom and the destruction of the historical East Wing like Google and Microsoft. Will Deb Nicholson sign a cancellation petition for the above named figures?
Someone else then said: "The PSF could reject donations from Microsoft and Google. Deb Nicholson was previously at the OSI, which is widely thought to be ... industry friendly, so that is unlikely to happen. They could also have done research in 2018 before accepting the award, which is standard procedure for politicians etc. But of course they wanted the award for their career."
Since then PSF has taken money from a very malicious slop booster, basically plagiarists and BS artists.
Another comment:
Software Freedom Conservancy had Microsoft, Google and Salesforce as Platinum sponsors:https://web.archive.org/web/20200522063800/https://2020.copy...
The whole software foundation industry is sketchy.
Then: "For one, I cannot examine all signatories of the Stallman cancellation petition here. Then, given the cancel and defamation happiness of the PSF, this is an excellent example for double standards."
We already covered how Deb Nicholson, who had attempted in vain to cancel the person who gave her an award, basically violated Codes of Conduct and got away with it.
That was OK as long as Deb Nicholson worked for Big Money, having brought Microsoft money several times to SFC, served Microsoft at the OSI, and then worked for GAFAM. So it's not about what you do but about who gets served. █
Image source: Freedom, Libertad