Elias @eliasr@librem.one

@joacim

I also wonder what the people signing the "open letter" were thinking. I saw that you boosted https://www.arp242.net/rms.html earlier, perhaps you agree that it is appropriate to read carefully and think before deciding to sign something like that.

If the FSF gives in to demands because of that letter, does it mean that the kind of unjust and ill-founded personal attacks found in that letter are the new normal, the modern way of wielding power? Do the ends justify the means?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

So when asked if that page gives correct info, you answered:

> Generally, yes.

I am surprised that you would worry so little about the false allegation there. Or maybe you don't see it?

Please read this, then I am sure you will understand: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

As you can see, the medium text specifically notes that the article with that headline "does a great job".

So that is the kind of information that the open letter points to, so that the reader will get to know more.

In your opinion, is this medium page that the open letter refers to a good source of correct information?

9/9

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

8/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

Looking at that medium page, the reader finds this, including the headline "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’": (see next)

7/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

6/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

The appendix starts off with "RMS has a history of mistreating women" and refers to "[0]" which is a link to a medium.com page, it looks like this: (see next)

5/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

4/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

I would like to ask you about the information referred to in the appendix as well.

The open letter links to an appendix, the link says "We have detailed several public incidents of RMS’s behavior", it look like this: (see next)

3/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

If someone has launched several severe allegations against a person, and then they realize that parts of the allegations are wrong, you are saying they should still not do anything to correct their mistake because "it is not worth their time".

I disagree with you on this point. In my opinion it is worth the time to correct mistakes in such a case.

2/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> If they generally still agree, it is not worth their time to make a similar movement.

You seem to have lost sight of the fact that you are making very serious accusations against a person. If you have attacked another human being unfairly, correcting that is very important.

1/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

There is nothing wrong with admitting a mistake, on the contrary it is very important to be able to do so, for anyone with the intellectual honesty that you have.

Do you agree that someone who signed something with severe accusations and later realizes that it was wrong to sign it, that the right thing to do for that person is to remove their signature?

7/7

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

I understand that you find yourself in a difficult position, since if you remove your signature then you send a signal to others that signing the letter was not such a good idea after all. Maybe you convinced others to sign it earlier, then you will need to explain yourself to them. I hope that will not stop you from doing the right thing.

6/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

For example, since there is not strong enough basis for the "misogynist" claim, you should refuse to sign a text that makes such a claim.

And since it is wrong to put vicious labels on a person's identity rather than focusing on actions, you should refuse to sign a text that does so.

Have I succeeded in explaining why it is wrong to sign a text if you do not support all of it?

5/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
If people who want to express their opinions only support certain parts of a text, then they would need to either sign separate texts to get it right, or else, if they want to avoid separating the vote as you say, then they need to revise the text so that they find the common part that everyone supports. Then they can sign that new version without being dishonest, because then all who sign it do really stand by the whole text they are signing.

4/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
If you do not understand that, then try thinking about it from the perspective of someone who reads the text with all the signatures under it. The reader understands that all these people stand behind this whole text. There is no other way to interpret it when you read a text with a number of signatures.

3/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
Then you tried to escape from your responsibility by writing this:

> I don't believe that me, or people signing it need to agree on everything it says anyways.

But that escape does not work, it is a position impossible to defend which you will see if you think about it. If the people signing a text do not all stand by it, then it is wrong to add their signatures. If the people who signed it do not stand by the whole text, then the whole setup is deeply dishonest.

2/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
You wrote earlier:

> I don't believe that anyone who has signed the letter thinks RMS can't change

But at the same time you acknowledge that putting a label like "misogynist" on a person is bad because it assigns it to a person's identity, something that cannot change.

So the text is clearly phrased in the wrong way, and apparently you understand that now.

1/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org The premise when we started this discussion was that you had read the letter you signed and that you still stood by it.

Now I see that you do not really stand by it, you now appear to only support the "removing from all leadership positions" part and not all the ill-founded accusations.

I take it that you have changed your mind. Fine, we all make mistakes. Then you should make sure to have your signature removed, since you do not actually support the text you had signed.

@digital Purism support answered that direct messages are not available (they are disabled) on Librem One. Because of not wanting to create a false sense of privacy with DMs that aren't actually private. So the reason is just like @lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org guessed earlier.
Still hoping to get some more answer about if they could at least implement some kind of error indication to the sender who tries to send DMs from other instances, no answer on that part yet.