I guess I know what he will answer: "We focus on software freedom". #RMS is usually pretty honest about this: he doesn't fight the enemies of every good battle (I can't find the resource but if I remember correctly, it's on #FSF website): in his opinion there's space for different activisms from different people, but fighting all battles at once simply inhibit your probability of success.
I think he has a point on this: beyond efficiency, there's a risk of #moralism...
..that is easy to exploit from people who make a living fighting battles but cannot afford to win the #War.
The problem with #Google sponsorship of a conference on #copyleft is not (directly) #SurveillanceCapitalism, so even if I agree with you on the huge severity of this threat, I have to say that it's slightly off topic there unless you explain how it's incompatible with copyleft and will cap and orient the discussion about licenses' reach.
So you start by sending RMS a link and in the rest of the email assume he has seen what's on the website you linked?
I don't think this is a very effective approach, considering that he'll need to get someone else to download or screenshot the website and email it to him.
@Wolf480pl If Richard can’t follow a link to a web site in 2019, that’s his problem, not mine.
@aral if you don't care if he understands your objection, why did you write the email in the first place?
Are you just trying to discredit him by asking him a hard question and then planning to publish the answer if he slips up?
@Wolf480pl No, I expect him to be able to follow a link to a web site. What the fuck is wrong with you?
I guess I overreacted a bit...
The intent of my first reply was to help you better achieve your goal of convincing RMS to do something about the sponsorship issue. Assuming that was your goal, that is.
I know it is surprising that someone wouldn't be able to follow a WWW link.
But if I wanted that person to do something for me, and I knew following a link is a problem for them, I would provide a summary of the webpage, or maybe a screenshot, in the email itself.
Because it's easier for me to do that than for that person to follow the link, and it makes it easier to achieve what I'm trying to do.
@Wolf480pl Is that really the case, he can’t browse the web? Last I knew he had a regular Linux laptop. I can send him the text of the site if that’s the case but I’m flummoxed nevertheless.
@Wolf480pl Thanks, I appreciate that. I included the link because it is a source, not to make Richard do more work.
@Wolf480pl (I mean a primary source.)
@aral AFAIK RMS doesn't care about the origin of the free software and so on. If it's free software it's ok for him, he doesn't care if it's a whitewashing maneuver from corporations.
I think that kind of argument will apply for this too but I'd love to hear his answer, keep us posted if possible, please.
@aral I hope there'll be a talk about the dangers of DRM by a Google on the conference.....
@aral did you ask him to stop his pedophila views too?
@kyzh I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re referring to. Link?
@aral here is a copy of a toot I saw a while back 'A thread that talks about Stallman, how any FSF event is unsafe, and brings receipts:
It is also on his website and you'll find more if you duckduck it
@wolftune Not the same thing at all. And, sadly, used too often as an excuse (especially by academics) who love to remain “neutral” (i.e., funded by the oppressors)
@aral Of course it's problematic in several respects, but it *is* similar. They're wanting to fund the conference. It's a tactical decision. One which you can quite fairly criticize.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!