Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 11:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
By Mitchel Lewis (“Is Satya Real?”)
Summary: “I’m merely wondering if his image and accolades that we’re incessantly bombarded with by the press actually reflect his accomplishments or if they’re being aggrandized.”
Few executives have garnered more positive press than Satya Nadella since he took the reins at Microsoft. As shown with Elizabeth Holmes though, hype resulting from artificial press coverage is a commodity for major tech companies, hence why they all seem to have massive legal and PR teams to spin press favorably, too much of it can serve as correlate of the opposite being true; similar to a lifted truck with a pair of nuts hanging off the hitch.
With the influence of the media in mind, it’s easy to see why Nadella is credited with the lion’s share of Microsoft’s recent success while being revered as a mountaintop guru of sorts by many in the press. However, few, if any, tech companies are more notorious for manipulating the media than Microsoft. As such, when I ask if Satya Nadella is real, I’m not asking if he’s a real person. Instead, I’m merely wondering if his image and accolades that we’re incessantly bombarded with by the press actually reflect his accomplishments or if they’re being aggrandized.
So, is Satya real? Is he a genuine hyper-woke leader that hit refresh at Microsoft? Is he the champion of growth mindset and change? Or Is he just another manufactured figurehead doing what he’s told by a pasty white cabal of lawyers and PR people? Or is he somewhere in between?
If you were to ask Dina Bass of Bloomberg, she would maintain that Satya is the real deal and that Microsoft is going through a renaissance under his leadership. So would Jim Cramer and the list goes on and on. To their credit, Microsoft has made a boatload of money since Nadella took the reins. But correlation doesn’t always equal causation. Change occurs slowly on an enterprise scale and any manager at Microsoft will gladly affirm that it can be a big ship to steer. Resultantly, Microsoft has to plot its course so far in advance that the profits earned today are the byproduct of strategic planning and decisions made 5–10 years ago; none of which immediately goes out the door with leadership changes. As such, it can take 5–10 years for the merits of their new leadership to come into play and be realized as they slowly come out of the shadow of their predecessor.

Cut out for space? Or cut out because it contradicts the renaissance narrative?
As a result of this executive runoff, which Dina openly admits (omits?), it’s safe to say that Nadella’s influence is still gradually being realized, for better or for worse. Ironically, much of the success that Microsoft is seeing today can still be credited back to Steve Ballmer and his old guard which is still mostly intact to this day. From the present success of Office 365, Azure, Windows 10, Server, Surface, Visual Studio, Hololens, and Xbox to their GitHub and LinkedIn Acquisitions, virtually all of the major decisions bringing these products where they are today were put in motion before Satya’s ascent to the CEO position. It’s just not advantageous for Microsoft to hype up Satya’s predecessors or their old guard with any of their accomplishments.
Sure, he could be the harbinger of ethical change at Microsoft, but it’s not as if Satya was at odds with Ballmer or Gates while under their leadership. Nadella gladly worked under both of them at a company where being ethical was/is a career-limiting move and seemingly taking no issue with anything that Microsoft became notorious for. He didn’t take a stand against their blatant anticompetitive behavior. He is seemingly fine with their commitment to lock-in and is chill with patent trolling too. Bribery? HR and management systematically retaliating against dissenters, whistleblowers, and abuse victims? Pay inequality? No problem at all as far as Nadella is concerned.
Presently, Microsoft is supplying ICE and CBP with its entire suite of software and services despite their participation in genocide. Meanwhile, Microsoft is also catering to China’s facial recognition ambitions and remain complicit in their various human rights violations; they aren’t the only ones though. In response, Satya has tried to downplay Microsoft’s relationship with these government entities while trying to distance the complicity of their productivity software from their deplorable behavior. But his lip service ultimately seems to contradict itself when it doesn’t dance around the subject entirely while his actions are par for the course with his predecessors.
In a recent interview and rather than acknowledging their complicity, Nadella claims to maintain some ethical control over their software, from who gets to use it to how they get to use it. Yet, he’s mum when ICE and CBP are blatantly violating their code of conduct with regard to the welfare of children. Even worse, he also seems to prefer to leave ethical decisions to the various laws of the land that they’re operating within like a modern Protagoras in the same breath; legal does not equal ethical. All while ignoring protests of this sort of behavior on his doorstep, internally, and abroad.
“We do have control on who gets to use our technology…and we do have principles. Beyond how we build it, how people use it is something that we control through Terms of Use. And we are constantly evolving the terms of use.”
“We also recognize whether it’s in the United States, whether it’s in China, whether it’s in the United Kingdom, they will all have their own legislative processes on what they accept or don’t accept, and we will abide by them.”
-Satya Nadella
With the above in mind, it’s quite obvious that Satya is towing the company line and deferring ethical decisions to his legal and PR teams while parroting whatever said teams mandate that he say. But ethics deferred are ethics abandoned and this is especially true when one defers to the likes of corporate counsel, PR teams, or the bastardized logic of regimes. As is the case for a proper figurehead, you would be hard-pressed to find Satya going against the grain of anything that Microsoft has become notorious for. None of which is a hallmark of the leadership qualities and ethical stances that he is supposedly a champion of.
While he’s positioned as a techno demigod in the media, Nadella is not even allowed to check his email according to his legal team which is a solid indicator of who is truly wearing the pants at Microsoft. That said, how much sway corporate counsel has within an organization the size of Microsoft often goes overlooked. When you’re walking the line between legal and criminal as Microsoft has done historically, you tend to do whatever your lawyer tells you to do and this is no different for a corporation. And this is especially the case at a law firm with a software problem such as Microsoft which was founded by the affluenza’d son of a Halliburton attorney.
Given the undue amount of influence of Microsoft’s legal team has within its walls, it borders on the irrational to expect a significant amount of change from such a company so long as they retain the same lawyers regardless of who their CEO is. Just as you don’t need a criminal defense attorney when you’re not committing crimes, you also won’t need the king of anti-trust such as Brad Smith working at the top legal position of your company unless you’re maintaining a monopoly and violating the Sherman Act.
When I was a vendor at Microsoft, I was told that it was not my job to think, only to do as I was told. Much like a vendor, it’s not Satya’s job to think as a figurehead either. Instead, it’s Satya’s job to operate at the behest of Brad Smith and his legal/PR teams. This isn’t to say that this makes Nadella is a bad person though. He’s just not the person we’ve been sold. Ethically speaking, the real Satya Nadella is most likely no better or worse than anyone else doing their job at Microsoft or anywhere else that requires employees to shelve ethics for a paycheck. You’re welcome to believe the hype though. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 10:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
By figosdev
Summary: “For better or for worse, we can be certain the Free Software Foundation will never be the same.”
Internet eras come and go in one lifetime. Other technological ages approach and wane with the same haste.
The First Age of Free software arrived in the 1950s, when source code was both available and unrestricted. Neither copyright nor patents were applicable to code, and the A-2 compiler gave customers the opportunity to study and improve the software.
The First Age continued through the 1970s, and gave birth to C, UNIX and BSD. In 1980, Software became copyrightable in the United States — as of the late 1990s, Microsoft had still not yet found a way to abuse the patent system to increase their level of control over the market.
“In 1980, Software became copyrightable in the United States — as of the late 1990s, Microsoft had still not yet found a way to abuse the patent system to increase their level of control over the market.”The Second, and first deliberate Age of Free software, began in the 1980s as Richard Stallman created the Free Software Foundation. Now that monopolies were exerting additional control over software, Stallman realised that this ultimately meant exerting unjust control over the users themselves. For an extreme example of this, one need only consider the level of control that Amazon has today over your ebook library.
You may “purchase” an ebook, but Amazon controls your digital reader and with that, your library. You have less of a say over your own books than the company you bought them from, which is an unprecedented level of control over libraries that circumvents First-sale doctrine.
First-sale doctrine dictates that even if you don’t have the right to publish a book, the physical copy you purchase is yours to change, resell, destroy — you don’t control the publishing rights but you do own your copy.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (where applicable) is at odds with First-sale doctrine, making it a crime to circumvent the encryption scheme on ebooks, music and films. But it’s Amazon’s control of the software that gives them their control of your library — and poses an existential threat to public libraries, which have nearly always existed in the (legally and constitutionally defended) defiance of publishers.
“But it’s Amazon’s control of the software that gives them their control of your library — and poses an existential threat to public libraries, which have nearly always existed in the (legally and constitutionally defended) defiance of publishers.”There are countless other examples of how non-free software creates a lack of freedom for the user, but the threat that companies who promote such software pose to libraries is as good an example as any. Similar modern injustices exist for users of automobiles, pacemakers and farm equipment.
In the late 90s, the Third Age of Free software began. This was an age where Free software worked to maintain awareness as a schism took place. As the GNU project moved forward from creating the rest of an operating system to creating a viable kernel, another free kernel emerged. We know this as the Linux kernel, which has included a Free software license since 1992.
It was not a problem that the Linux kernel was created outside of the GNU project per se, but it created a unique challenge. The authors of Linux were not interested in promoting Free software; they preferred to promote an offshoot or alternative concept called “Open Source.” And one of the primary goals of Open Source was to focus on goals that businesses liked, without having to talk about politics or freedom.
“The authors of Linux were not interested in promoting Free software; they preferred to promote an offshoot or alternative concept called “Open Source.” And one of the primary goals of Open Source was to focus on goals that businesses liked, without having to talk about politics or freedom.”The Third Age is an age of excessive compromise, as well as greater awareness of the products of Free software — through an often unsympathetic, pro-corporate and monopoly-sponsored tech press. This age created great misconceptions and frequently misrepresented history prior to “informing” the public about it. The Third Age helped to steal Free software from the poor and the general public, and give it to the rich and monopolistic.
The Third Age is largely successful, from the standpoint of people who are happy to find that Free software is now actually less free than before. If you ask someone sympathetic to Open Source, they may refer to the movement they co-opted as consisting of “neckbeards”, “whiners” and “zealots”. They mock people who spent years working hard to make software free for everyone as “cheapskates”. But for them, Open source is a triumph. It has entirely different standards of success, but by those standards things are going very well.
If an outside group co-opting Free software forms the Third Age, then the next great Schism in Free Software is the Fourth or present Age. This is a potentially dark age where Free Software itself splits apart — the cause could be considered as a combination of factors.
One factor is the damage to the Free software ecosystem caused by monopoly interference. This has been recognised for years by Free software supporters in various camps, closer to the outskirts (or frontiers) of the movement than the Free Software Foundation itself.
A second factor is the failure of the Free Software Foundation to respond to this category of interference. For many years, a debate has existed between these frontier supporters and the FSF on what the greatest threats to Free software are today. None of this negates or tries to negate the original or primary threats to freedom that have always existed and are still relevant — this a key difference between the current schism and Open Source.
“The First Age was an age of de facto software freedom, the Second Age was the first age of deliberate and intentional freedom, the Third Age was an age of challenged freedom — and in the Fourth Age, we find a dramatic change in leadership and organisation.”Finally, there are people working closely with the Free Software Foundation who have supported the complete political and social ousting of its leader. While voluntarily stepping down as president may have given the FSF the chance to find and transition in a leader suitable to the movement, this has now taken place under other, more disruptive circumstances (including leaving the board instead of just the position) and this dramatic change makes the Fourth Age of Free software that much more distinct.
The First Age was an age of de facto software freedom, the Second Age was the first age of deliberate and intentional freedom, the Third Age was an age of challenged freedom — and in the Fourth Age, we find a dramatic change in leadership and organisation.
You may choose to define this age as the one where its founder was ousted and rejected. Alternatively, you may choose to define this age as the one where the FSF lost credibility with the treatment of its founder. Stallman himself encourages us not to blame the FSF as an organisation, and I can still appreciate and try to support that request. How we go about supporting the FSF in the future is something we are all ultimately going to be discussing.
Speaking personally, I am not the only person that thinks we need the FSF just as much as ever before. I think this is mostly an attack by monopolies, enabled by damage done by Open Source, and that ceding too much control to those who never cared about freedom has weakened the FSF to the point of nearly falling apart.
I do think we should work to save the Free Software Foundation, and abandoning it will not likely save it.
“I do think we should work to save the Free Software Foundation, and abandoning it will not likely save it.”But it will only be saved on terms that no longer neglect the problems that led to this age in the first place. In other words, if we continue to support the FSF, it will be clear that Free software advocates have a greater input in the future and are not so easily waved aside.
It’s important that the FSF not compromise on its goals, but it is also important that it not shy away from addressing new problems. It can be argued that the FSF has fallen short on both. Since we cannot trust the FSF to get everything right, since it has proven unable to sustain its mission in a number of notable ways, it must be willing to accept help that it waved aside in the past.
This does not mean giving into the false compromise and false promise of Open Source. If anything, it has done too much of that already.
But since the FSF was founded, many organisations sympathetic to Software Freedom and (with varying degree) the FSF itself have formed. These are typically smaller organisations, often focusing on certain aspects of freedom that the FSF may neglect or even try to negate.
These organisations cannot and will not be ignored or hastily dismissed any longer. We have predicted several of the crises the FSF is bleeding out from, and if the FSF insists on continuing to bleed out this way, it will die. We can’t force them to listen, or to agree. But we can certainly point out the foolishness of some of the key mistakes that brought us to this point in time. We can also point out solutions that are within the FSF’s ability to implement.
“Regardless of what happens to a sole organisation, this is the second and new age where lines have appeared between those who would have Richard Stallman as captain, and those who would not.”The FSF remains very important to Free software. It holds documents, software, history and talent that can probably do far more good where it belongs — sheltered and maintained by the FSF, if they are willing to work with a broadening, ideologically diverse but sincere and devoted Free software community. By no means will we have a net benefit if the FSF falls.
But we also know that the FSF has failed us in ways we won’t put aside. Even if the organisation is vital, even if the majority of its volunteers are better described as “with us” than “against us,” those who are responsible for these failures will be noted and trusted less than in the past.
The FSF must choose — between becoming less trusted as an organisation, or understanding that certain individuals will become less trusted as a result of all this. We owe it to Stallman, as well as ourselves, not to be hasty or superficial in where we place or withdraw our trust. But the First and Second ages of Free software were ages of innocence and growing up. The Third and Fourth ages will prove to be ages of hard lessons and struggling to regain lost ground, as well as ages of new ideas and evolution.
“For better or for worse, we can be certain the Free Software Foundation will never be the same.”In many ways, it was our own decisions that led us here. In another sense, this is the direction we were swept into. The Free Software Foundation lacks a leader, and the Free software movement is searching for a new anchor. What once was a great ship, is very arguably now a fleet. Regardless of what happens to a sole organisation, this is the second and new age where lines have appeared between those who would have Richard Stallman as captain, and those who would not.
For some of us, this could be the age where Stallman is retired as captain and is promoted (by us) to Admiral, as several new captains appear. For better or for worse, we can be certain the Free Software Foundation will never be the same. Free software sails on, into uncharted waters. We venture forth in search of greater freedom — we do not abandon the quest for freedom for marketshare alone.
Long Live Stallman, and Happy Hacking. █
Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 10:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
By figosdev
Summary: “The guidelines are barely about conduct anyway, they are more about process guidelines for “what to do with your autonomy” in the context of a larger group where participation is completely voluntary and each individual consents to participate.”
First things first: apologies for the acronym.
To
Help
Realise
Ideal
Volunteer
Efforts
These guidelines were written in late July, before the FSF Titanic series or Stallman stepping down. The reaction I tend to expect to a list like this is: “Oh no, a Code of Conduct.”
“The guidelines are barely about conduct anyway, they are more about process guidelines for “what to do with your autonomy” in the context of a larger group where participation is completely voluntary and each individual consents to participate. In other words these are intended to assist, not be imposed. Maybe a better way to consider them is as a sort of informal RFC.”If that’s your concern, I can appreciate it. Which is why the thrive guidelines have their own Code-of-Conduct Escape clause:
“Wherever these guidelines are misused to threaten community and development, they should be regarded with scrutiny — whenever these guidelines help create a foundation for purposeful development and progress, they should be considered thoughtfully.”
This is despite the fact (and hopefully reinforces the idea) that the guidelines are intended to be non-binding.
The guidelines are barely about conduct anyway, they are more about process guidelines for “what to do with your autonomy” in the context of a larger group where participation is completely voluntary and each individual consents to participate. In other words these are intended to assist, not be imposed. Maybe a better way to consider them is as a sort of informal RFC.
I will quote each of the ten guidelines one a time, then comment on each in the hopes of further clarification.
1. “Integrity and checks and balances are more valuable than false compromise.”
I’m fond of pointing out that just enough compromise can be wonderful, but too much can be devastating. Having more than one group working to maintain and improve the ecosystem means that if one authority (or respected group) goes sour, then others can speak up and offer a backup plan. Fans of a single, centralised point of authority won’t like this. But, it is a recommendation. It is non-binding, so people who are against it simply won’t have anything to do with it.
As I said in my previous article, for example:
“Many have called for a certain large, corporation associated with a particular primary-coloured hue to apologise for their active role in the Holocaust. Yet one of their subsidiaries asks for an arguably more grassroots organisation to seize an opportunity for greater diversity.”“When we agree on something, we struggle together. When we can’t agree, we struggle apart. It’s very useful to find our commonalities, and understand our differences. For many of us, Stallman and freedom are two things we are not willing to compromise on.”
That isn’t a decision that a central authority needs to make. Many of us are not willing to bend on the Stallman issue (a reminder that this guideline predates the Stallman issue.) So we invite anybody who is willing to work with us despite not bending on that issue, do so. They don’t need to sign an oath of loyalty to Stallman, but if they ask us to do something unjust against him — that’s something we won’t do.
At that point, you have a schism — and you would actually have that schism anyway. The difference is that some of us are building something that is more schism-tolerant. Other points address this a little more directly.
2. “Ignoring your own standards, as well as taking rules too seriously, can compromise the integrity of your community. Many communities are already diminished along these lines.”
This is mostly a comment on the state of communities, and a recommendation to try to live up to your own community standards. Those who already oppose the imposition of a Code of Conduct can read this as: “If you have a Code of Conduct that expects certain behaviour of others, you are naturally expected to treat them just as well as you’re demanding of them.”
Nobody is perfect, and it’s obvious that people already hold some to a more unreasonable interpretation of their standards than others. While suggesting that people not do that isn’t likely to cancel out any hypocrisy directly, this point at least comments on it.
3. “The corporate monopolies that promise to help resolve these problems, have a history of fundamental selfishness and interference. Giving these corporations too great a say in matters has helped them to destroy communities and stifle their efforts.”
This point comments on past mistakes, and also predates one of the best examples. Many have called for a certain large, corporation associated with a particular primary-coloured hue to apologise for their active role in the Holocaust. Yet one of their subsidiaries asks for an arguably more grassroots organisation to seize an opportunity for greater diversity.
“One only need look to Stallman to demonstrate how intolerant we’ve become of opinions — but that intolerance is a standing threat to all of us if we wish to work together and not be ridiculous when we use the word “inclusion.” While these guidelines are not meant to be imposed, if more people had taken them to heart, it would have possibly been more difficult to let Stallman suffer as much as we already have.”You could argue this is the same point as the second one, addressed specifically to very large and powerful companies. While it is unlikely to change the course of those companies directly, it serves as a warning to those who would take their requests (and perhaps, their lip-service) too seriously.
4. “In practical terms, ‘working together’ means finding enough common ground for collaboration. It does not mean abandoning the principles or values of your own community.”
This could be considered a re-iteration of what was said in my previous article: “When we agree on something, we struggle together. When we can’t agree, we struggle apart. It’s very useful to find our commonalities, and understand our differences.” Except it is actually a pre-iteration.
Some differences are worth working past. Other differences are simply worth accepting. Another way of saying this is that along with diversity of people, we should make it possible (whenever we can bring ourselves to do so) to include people with a diversity of opinions. In my own opinion, this is a strength that we were doing impressively well with, before all this corporate help showed up.
One only need look to Stallman to demonstrate how intolerant we’ve become of opinions — but that intolerance is a standing threat to all of us if we wish to work together and not be ridiculous when we use the word “inclusion.” While these guidelines are not meant to be imposed, if more people had taken them to heart, it would have possibly been more difficult to let Stallman suffer as much as we already have.
“These really are anti-monopoly recommendations, for making communities hopefully more robust in the presence of well-organised social attacks.”Not that I want you to think this is all about one example. What I really want you to do is think about how it would be for an entire community to start stoning you because of something you yourself were misquoted as saying by Forbes or ZDNet. All of these guidelines predate that incident, but many of these would have helped mitigate it.
These really are anti-monopoly recommendations, for making communities hopefully more robust in the presence of well-organised social attacks. If you think you can create a better version, these guidelines are already in the public domain.
And people are going to argue for more centralisation, of course. Some people like centralisation and single-points-of-failure, because they think of control exclusively in terms of benefits, not costs. Decentralisation has costs as well.
Very few meaningful decisions are made without accumulating both costs and benefits. It’s really a question of what benefits are desirable and what costs are unacceptable. If you can accept a single-point-of-failure that guarantees a tragedy in the long run, there are some short-term benefits to say the very least.
5. “In dealing with both critics and allies, it is always more useful to look past the superficial — towards motivations, true nature and real effects. Society encourages the shallow evaluation of goods and services, as well as of people. Vital communities must do better in this regard than general society, if they wish to thrive. This is not intended to eliminate speculation, only to temper superficiality.”
“A lot of it comes down to accepting differences, having more than a single venue for progress to be worked on, and working together when it makes sense. This is more robust because if you get Amish-shunned out of one community that has gotten a bit weird or been taken over, there are other places nearby where you can contribute instead.”Superficiality is a theme addressed in my previous article on Techrights (already linked from point 1.)
Back when the “Free Software Federation” was more of a concept, these were guidelines on how people who want such a thing to work (this by no means assumes that everybody would want it to) could understand how to make it run smoothly enough.
A lot of it comes down to accepting differences, having more than a single venue for progress to be worked on, and working together when it makes sense. This is more robust because if you get Amish-shunned out of one community that has gotten a bit weird or been taken over, there are other places nearby where you can contribute instead.
“Another thing to think about the is the level of censorship and interference going on. In security terms, this should be part of our threat model…”It is also a strong suggestion that such schemes have gradually been proven necessary if we want Free software to continue to have the level of practical success it already had in the past. A lot of people already look around and realise that “something has gone terribly wrong.” You can be certain there will be people demanding that single-points-of-failure be reinforced by more monopolistic means.
As recent history has shown us, when that happens it can leave us generally out of the loop — just sort of waiting for “permission” or a “cue” to get back to business as usual, while we try to figure out how to respond or move forward, without much in the way of means to do so. A reasonable word for that effect is “devastation.” It’s good to ask if we would have that level of devastation right now, if we had found a way to make Free software (as a movement) “more robust” or as I keep saying, “more decentralised.”
In the past, we had collaboration schemes as loosely defined as something called a “web ring.” Today, a “mesh network” would be a resilient structure more worthy of consideration than a “ring” (which was often maintained by a single person, albeit one who was very open to all sorts of people joining and adding their website.)
So you could, if you wanted to maybe overhype the idea, call this an “early version of a social protocol for a voluntary organisational mesh network.” But just calling it the “THRIVE Guidelines” is probably a lot more reasonable.
Another thing to think about the is the level of censorship and interference going on. In security terms, this should be part of our threat model:
I’m referring to this sort of behaviour from large corporations.
I’m also referring to this sort of behaviour from our beloved non-profits.
And even in the example of the FSF and FSFE:
“In 2018, FSFE used these tactics to make it appear that nobody supported elections any more.”
“In 2019, rogue elements of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) staff used the same tactics to undermine their own founder, Richard Stallman.”
“I don’t even think the other FSF chapters are prepared to defend everything the FSFE is doing right now.”NOW, if we can’t even even trust the FSF to prevent this sort of thing, and if their own objectives are being compromised by the (completely unjustified — as in there is simply no good reason given) censoring of mailing-lists, what exactly do we do?
And THAT is why federation is actually key to the future of our movement. It’s certainly not that the FSF doesn’t have a completely vital role to play. I think as the original, pioneering organisation with the most experience to lend us (and traditionally the greatest authority — actively maintaining the definition of Free software itself) I think bolstering that organisation (what Stallman asks us to do, I would add) is a very good idea.
But when I wrote about the need to create lifeboats for the same organisation prior to a great tragedy — which happened not 30 days later, as things turn out — I wasn’t doing that because I thought it would make a great story. I was doing it for exactly the reason it said on the tin:
A. The FSF is vulnerable.
B. The FSF is vulnerable.
C. The FSF is vulnerable.
The most obvious way around this (mission-damaging) censorship (a topic Daniel Pocock knows more about than I do — I comment on the things he goes into great detail about — with actual facts and evidence that I had only expected to come out eventually) is to have more communication, interconnection and organisation between autonomous “nodes” of this movement.
As it happens, such nodes already existed. Right now it appears that (if Pocock’s claims are true, and I suspect they are) the FSF (Boston) is at least somewhat compromised, and FSFE is (as I already thought) more compromised. I don’t even think the other FSF chapters are prepared to defend everything the FSFE is doing right now.
“FSFE censors, Pocock un-censors, the Federation “boosts” the uncensorship.”In terms of Copyright and Patents and yes, censorship — the EU is a mess right now, and FSFE is just a snail’s distance from going along with it on far too much.
So who is going to hold the FSFE accountable on these matters? Their members? The FSFE is (according to what I gather from reading the things Pocock says, but not to put these words in his mouth) manipulating its members with an almost Facebook-like tactic. I’m surprised, but not shocked that it has come to that.
Please don’t get me wrong on this — I’m not saying the future is hopeless for the FSF, only that the present is obviously dire!
And that if we care, we will lend them a hand that they have no real choice to turn away. FSFE censors, Pocock un-censors, the Federation “boosts” the uncensorship.
“Now, where do we get future coders from?”A federation that cares about Free software has the potential to “route around” not only mailing-list censorship, but even the corruption that happens at the very top of these organisations. But it loses that flexibility if we try too hard to “unite.” It is the redundancy that creates the robust nature of what we are doing.
But if you’ve ever tried to write code that uses concurrency, you know that such things are a little less intuitive than traditional scripting. So to make that accessible to more people, we have these recommendations.
If you want to know more about working around mailing list censorship, I strongly recommend looking around Daniel Pocock’s blog for more: https://danielpocock.com
Now, where do we get future coders from? From time to time, some people express concern about the “aging” of their developer force. This means that people capable of contributing either aren’t allowed to join, aren’t aware of the opportunity to join, aren’t interested in joining — or don’t even exist.
One way to address all of those points is with education:
6. “Without some greater commitment to the needs and education of users, Free software will soon lose too much ground to corporations that falsely pander to them. This is not a call to make everything ‘user friendly.’ As a user, you are free to develop on your own terms. There are still areas in which progress could be made regarding development.”
Should we allow repos (such as F-Droid) to be balkanised over political differences? Maybe not:
7. “It is better to have communities divided over politics than to have software development and repos hijacked and repurposed by a single political faction.”
How can a federated community help prevent such hijacking of repos? With a (relatively) neutral 3rd (or 3rd, 4th and 5th) party:
8. When communities with valuable contributions become divided over political differences, umbrella communities and organisations are a positive way to invite long-term resolution. Haste and superficial resolution are less positive, though “first step” efforts will hopefully count for something.
But false compromise is once again warned against — due to the amount of it I think we’ve already witnessed. We always want to enable cooperation where we can, without introducing false compromises and bad compromises. Freedom of course, produces differences:
9. “Each community should be allowed to explore its own options to further the long-term benefits of its efforts towards software freedom — subject to informal approval and/or intellectually honest (fair) critique from from other communities.”
If you need permission to comment, we really have dramatically changed as a movement. Point 9 says more than that, but this is a point worth reiterating at this time.
But what about the users? What should we do for them? The user of today may one day become the ally of tomorrow. So maybe, let’s one way to set a good example for our future is:
10. Communities should avoid, as much as possible and practical, efforts to lock other users into their software or distributions. The more important and popular (and fundamental) the software is, the more modular and optional and flexible the software should ideally be. Even the distro itself should become more modular and universal — via thoughtful design conventions, rather than rigid and demanding standards. But when in doubt, refer to points 5 and 9.
If you’ve read the FSF Titanic series, there are many more comments on making this sort of thing possible.
As for this list of recommendations — you can think of it as being told what to do, no matter how much someone stresses that the idea is nothing of the sort. On the other hand, I would say that it’s unfair to ask people to do something complicated and revolutionary without providing some real suggestions as to how it could be possible.
These guidelines were one of the first steps (predating, and even helping to inspire the FSF Titanic series) towards providing those real suggestions. As a bonus, this many-paragraph article and contextual update can be swapped out to some reasonable degree with just the 10 points mentioned. Though now that there’s some commentary on them, it’s possible their value is a little more obvious.
Long Live Stallman, and Happy Hacking. █
Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)
Permalink
Send this to a friend