Censoring on gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
It's cancel culture. One is allowed to post defamation without facts of the founder on founder's established mailing list. Other is not allowed to show the facts. And then somebody speaks about the "bad image", my goodness, I was really nice in my last email and they censored me. Now is going to remain forever on this page.
What was allowed to be published on gnu-misc-discuss mailing list?
This here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-10/msg00162.html was allowed to be published as of October 30th 2019.
What was explanation for censorship?
From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu Oct 31 10:51:23 2019 Subject: Request to mailing list gnu-misc-discuss rejected From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 05:51:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Your request to the gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Posting of your message titled "Cancel Culture and Mob's Justice in GNU Project - was Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else)" has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "Your message was deemed inappropriate by the moderator." Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at: email@example.com
What was censored on gnu-misc-discuss mailing list?
The text below was censodred on the gnu-misc-discuss mailing list, as "moderator deemed it not appropriate".
Some people have been in BCC. I do not wish to pollute the mailing list.
Thank you for your explanation, see below:
- Sandra Loosemore firstname.lastname@example.org [2019-10-31 00:41]:
It has bothered me for a long time that there are so few women participating in the GNU community. I think I might be the only female maintainer on either GCC/Binutils right now (I haven't gone through the lists, but the others I used to know about have stepped down). The photos of the attendees at recent Cauldrons show a group that is roughly 99% male. The steering committee is 100% male. There is something wrong with our community that we cannot attract more women, and we need to fix it, because a developer community that consists almost exclusively of old white men is not sustainable.
When I was small child it did not bother me if I speak to male or female, young or old, it was all the same. I have not had any preferences. Then throughout the time I was more associating with people who I like more than the others, and now again I have no preferences, but intelligence of the person (reasoning) and friendship. I don't mind if person is male or female, young or old, white or "black".
After some research of origins of "black" and "white" terms in the US, I never call people black or white, and I direct my African fellows not to call each other black as that is really US-based racism, replacement for "negro", etymology of "black" is etymology of US-based racism.
The reason I don't call people black is first that it is not true. After seeing so many people, both females and males, I could not encounter one person that was "black", and believe me, I have inspected their skin, and all that I could I found were pigments of brown color.
I have examined those people referred as "white" and I found that I could not find not even one "white" person. Not even people without pigments were "white". White is my toilet paper, or printer paper, but not people.
Newly easily accessible gene tests also show that none person is really white or black, we are so much mixed.
Another fact is maybe that I am not born in the USA where children learn that there are "races" because there are no races in biological sense between humans.
And you maybe know that calling people "black" in some countries is derogatory and outdated. But I am sure that nobody will get "offended" (oh, mamma mia) if you call people "white". Yet by calling anybody "black" or "white" in this context of yours is giving appearance of accusation by what US based persons call "race" or "white privilege".
GNU project did not discrimnate by the skin color, and it will stay so.
Reaon that I would not myself call people as "black" is also that I love those "black" people, it is my family and have few of "black" children (but could not finish counting them).
I am not offended, I only speak for freedom of speech, and giving you a different viewpoint.
We have been learning in the SFRJ, former Yugoslavia, quite different history of mankind, maybe it was doubletalk (see book 1984), but we have been learning that there are no biological races between humans, despite the variety of skin colors.
hen somebody calls people black or white, I tell them that I could not find not even one white or black, which is fact, true information. And many of them get surprised, especially African.
And then there were RMS's disgusting public comments defending sexual exploitation of minors, which were plastered all over the news and social media last month.
I hope you would read facts. I think you have not.
And maybe no facts can help in understanding when somebody get very emotional reaction.
Solution to the situation could be to calm down your feelings and keep it under control until you come to situation to review the facts. Then review the facts, and then make a backed, justified statement. "Justification" based on what somebody thinks based on rumors and false accusation is not a justification.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbQ1kc1vQU (use YouTube downloader)
My Thoughts on the Richard Stallman "Scandal" by Jacob: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGF17TbbBcE
The comment by RMS was not at all within the FSF neither GNU. The comment was beyond the FSF or GNU community, in fact it was on the private mailing list. Leaking the information out, and without the context, does not make your statement true "public comments defending sexual exploitation of minors, which were plastered all over the news and social media last month".
No, RMS did not defend "sexual exploitation of minors" -- never happened.
Further, the focus of the comment was not "defending sexual exploitation", I am sorry you are mistaken, RMS never defended sexual exploitation. It was comment to defend Minsky's honour, which every friend who knows a deceived friend would do. You would also attempt to defend honour of your deceived friend if you would know that there was false accusation. Focus was on inflation of false accusations. That was the context of the RMS's remark. That same focus and the context was intentionally or not intentionally left out by Selam G. young girl from Eritrea, if I am not mistaken, which published the article to "remove Stallman".
The "Cancel Culture" is not "culture." It is not shared by the general society. It is "mob culture" to take somebody "down" for emotional reasons. It is virtual lynching culture. Finally, it is illegal to defame and slander people. In my opinion, Stallman could sue Selam and those defaming him and he would win or lose. But that would be justice. Mob justice is not justice.
Finally Minsky, who RMS was defending, is not guilty, and accusing dead person is disgraceful: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/
That somebody does "bad public image" about RMS, is not a reason for the Social Justice Warriors to engage in what we have today in US/French society, a whole new wave of "hate movements" that for "political correctness" and by "cancel culture" motives call for Stallman to be "removed".
And I call it rather "Mob Justice Warriors -- as there is no real justice in such hate activity. It is fictional.
The absolute worst thing the public-facing representative of any organization can do is bring negative publicity to the organization about things that are irrelevant or contrary to the organization's mission.
Only those "things" were actually irrelevant, and it should be you as member of such organization to keep them irrelevant, because they are.
If you would read RMS comments, I cannot see anything in the comment that RMS is doing in the position of FSF neither GNU. He was talking on a non-relevant-to-GNU-or-FSF mailing list. He has rights to express his opinions, and his opinions are his opinions, unrelated to GNU and FSF.
A person cannot be "all for one subject". Every person in this world does many other things, RMS does GNU/FSF and in his life he does also other things. So is same for me, you and everybody else.
Intetional propaganda to make a bad public image, in this era of Internet, can change and ruin everybody, so it is in the first place for you, and for me, and for everybody who has reason and ability to differentiate facts and fiction to stand for the facts, to stand for the truth, and stand for the free speech.
And not to join the mob justice warriors.
It would be shame for myself to accept emotional responses of public for fact-less accusations of RMS as something "valid". It is not valid.
That would further mean that my father and mother, achieved nothing in raising me.
That would mean my upbringing was totally wrong. It would mean I am part of the mob who will for reasons of emotions "take somebody down" -- without looking into facts, without real justice, I would ruin somebody's life and everything that person have done for the society.
That is why, before accusing anybody, there is in the true justice system, and such exists in the US, the "presumption of innocence". At least in all accusations people shall strive to presume innocence of anybody before accusing somebody in public. Before trying to "cancel Stallman".
References about "Cancel Culture":
Cancel Culture - A Social Plague: #sjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocgwxtAVai0
Cancel culture is social media's derivation of "mob rule".
That is why in some organizations there are committees that will first bring evidences to light before making such accusations.
Please try not to make accusations without evidences. That is not justice. That is "mob justice". It is beneficial for everybody in society to try not to join the "mob justice".
I have given you few links that dismantle what RMS actually said, and you should read them. Please provide EXACT SPECIFIC evidences that would back your statements of accusation, as I have provided exact evidences that your statement is wrong.
As a result of RMS's comments, all of a sudden the public conversation about the GNU project was not about how good our software is and how free software is taking over the world and beneficial to everybody, it was about how we're an organization with an ingrained culture of harassing and demeaning women, and that we have such a cult of personality surrounding RMS that our policy is not to challenge the remarks and behavior of our Fearless Leader no matter how offensive they are -- not just to women, in this case, but to anyone who cares about human rights. It's been a public relations disaster for the GNU project. :-(
Instead of joining the mob justice, join the true justice. And ask people not to join hate movement, but free software movement.
Instead of joining the hate movement, try to find the facts about a subject, and provide facts, do and say something against the hate movements and "mob cancel culturee."
Just that somebody is spreading false information does not make that information true.
You have yourself said that you have not experienced anything bad in GNU project, so stand for what you know.
IMO, to regain control of our public image, I think we have to take some explicit and public steps to disassociate the GNU project from RMS's comments.
I don't think so.
GNU project since its beginnings did not have a goal to have control of public image. Goal was to create free operating system. There were many many attacks in past. While public image may be beneficial, what one has to stand is what is morally and ethically right thing to do. And not for reasons, whatever reasons there may be that mob is crying for.
I think that GNU project and FSF shall stand for the free speech and allow every person in the GNU project to speak what they wish, and not accuse them or expell them or disassociate from them for reasons of their free speech rights.
As free speech means protecting freedom of speech of people even if we don't like their free speech for one reason or other.
FSF and GNU projects are US projects.
US is one of foremost free speech countries.
Please people, don't make it North Korean project.
If the CEO of a corporation made such controversial and offensive statements, the board would likely demand his immediate resignation as part of damage control.
That is wrong, first it is wrong by US constitution, by US true justice system, it is wrong to accuse somebody without evidences based on emotional responses of "public" based on fact-less allegations.
What means to be CEO of corporation is what CEO does for corporation. If statistics and success of corporation is good, that should be the only factor to decide if CEO's worth for corporation is good. And nothing else.
It is wrong for FSF to engage into activities beyond free software philosophy, such as as the activity of policing anybody's free speech and "cancelling" its founder for that. That is not what it was incorporated for.
"No other politics" is the statement from GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, means no other politics.
Otherwise FSF is to become yet another Thoughtpolice Squad. That will be the future. Today is something politically correct or incorrect, tomorrow will be something else, I am not speaking of now, I am speaking of policies and fundamentals of any organization.
It shall start stalking anybody who is connected to GNU/FSF to see what they said, and will then initiate mob justice to "take'em down" for reasons of whatever introduced "political correctness".
By doing so, FSF would be deviating from free software philosophy.
In fact there is nothing that FSF/GNU shall do now, it is you that you should make distinction that FSF's goals and purposes are free software and not 1984-police for the thoughts.
You should recognize that RMS's statements were not for FSF/GNU, and defend freedom of speech for everybody including for RMS.
Single person's problem of being "offended" does not mean there was anything offensive! Don't allow any mistreatement on you, but if there was none, stand for the truth.
I think the FSF and GNU maintainers collectively have a similar responsibility as custodians of the GNU project
For those reasons then GNU maintainers have the responsibility to verify facts, to understand that everybody has freedom of speech beyond GNU project, and to defend freedom of speech of everybody -- and not to join the hate movement and "cancel culture".
Good video to watch:
Why Is Everyone Getting So Offended? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kGBQSXX_GU
Finally, those reasons you are bringing up are not planetary reasons. "Cancel Culture" and "mob rule by emotion" does not exist in many countries.
If you wish to speak for GNU organization, as planetary organization, then observe planetary facts.
If you wish to speak how to rule GNU organization as US organization, then at least observe the US constitution and human rights as founded by the US constitution.
and I do think RMS needs to resign for the good of the project. I appreciate his past technical contributions and his promotion of the concept of free software to begin with, but he is not a good public ambassador for the GNU community and has not seemed to do much actual leadership of the project (either technical or management) for many years now.
I understand your feelings, but those are feelings, not facts. It is very sad that you are joining the "cancel" hate movement.
I do not think that RMS is "ambassador", he is founder of the GNU project, that is what I know.
But hey, everybody can destroy somebody for cancel culture:
How to Use Cancel Culture to DESTROY Anyone You Disagree With in 3 Easy Steps! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agIIDGRspKY
RMS does not represent "GNU community" that I know, he cannot possibly represent people of GNU community, he is founder of GNU project and if he represents anything than it is free software philosophy and the GNU project, not community.
Please see this statement here: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Recruiting-Developers
"Some of the people who offer to help will support the GNU Project, while others may be interested for other reasons. Some will support the goals of the Free Software Movement, but some may not. They are all welcome to help with the work—we don’t ask people’s views or motivations before they contribute to GNU packages." " "As a consequence, you cannot expect all contributors to support the GNU Project, or to have a concern for its policies and standards. So part of your job as maintainer is to exercise your authority on these points when they arise. No matter how much of the work other people do, you are in charge of what goes in the release. When a crucial point arises, you should calmly state your decision and stick to it. "
Can you see in the quote? There is no need to ask for people's views or motivations before they contribute to GNU packages.
My perspective is that the GNU project's mission is to produce high-quality software that is free for everyone to use, and we should welcome contributions from anyone who wants to support that mission. We certainly should not make affirming support for RMS's non-free-software-related beliefs necessary for people to contribute to the GNU project, or to take a GNU maintainer/leadership role. Nor should there be any kind of personal loyalty oath to RMS involved in being a GNU contributor or maintainer.
I did not know that GNU project's mission is to produce high-quality software. I was thinking it is about free software. Not high-quality software.
BTW, I'm not sure if this has come up before, but the GNU brand is not the personal property of RMS. The trademark is owned by the Free Software Foundation (it shows up in the search at uspto.gov as registration #4125065).
Yes, and the trademark is not for political correctness or "cancel culture".
It is trademark "Computer operating programs and computer operating systems": http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4808:aoodjz.4.19
Quite few trademarks I have registered in past in many countries. And according to how GNU trademark is NOT being protected, it cannot be even enforced. And there is plethora of "GNU" related trademarks connected to "Linux" and computing in general by other organizations. GNU trademark was not enforced and it is already very much used by others who are not holder of the trademark.
And it would be bad for FSF to enforce any "intellectual property" rights. It would be hypocrisy in itself
So I think it is probably ultimately the FSF's responsibility to protect their brand and decide who they want to put in charge of overseeing it.
You are calling to "take down" Stallman. Very sad really. Trademark is a bad argument on that. It was not enforced for long time and people beyond GNU are using trademark "GNU" inside of computing and operating systems.
Actually, it is hypocrisy in itself to say for example that "Arch Linux" is "Arch GNU/Linux" if we are to respect and observe the "intellectual property" regarding GNU trademark. As the one that is maintaining "Arch Linux" would be automatically disallowed to use "GNU" in their trademark, as Arch is not FSF. That is not goal of the FSF.
Debian GNU/Linux is not FSF organization, they would then need to have explicit permission from FSF to use the GNU trademark.
GNU trademark was registered back in time, I do not know for what reason, maybe it made sense in its beginnings, but since last 20 years it makes no sense any more. It is really the last argument to have, to "cancel" Stallman.
GNU project has been spread so much that any "dillution" of the trademark cannot influence GNU project, in fact, it is contributing back to it.
GNU project is philosophical and political, thus "trademark" is really not the strength of GNU project, it is beyond that. Because it does not sell specific computers or specific proprietary software, it wishes that GNU as word is spread as people like and want.
Practical reality for GNU trademark is that GNU project wish for everybody to "abuse" the trademark for as much as they wish and like, and use it in free software and computing as much as they wish.
One possible even that I could think that GNU trademark should be enforced would be over using "GNU" for reasons of selling proprietary software. Maybe also in cases of the GPL violations. Beyond that, I do not see ANY reason. Certainly not the "cancel culture" reason.
OTOH they rely on volunteer labor to do the actual software development, maintenance, and release management for each individual software package, so it's important to take organizational decisions that strengthen the developer community rather than weaken it.
Developer community is weakened only by introduction of "mob cancel culture", and by introduction of "other movements" but free software movements.
GNU project is free software movements.
Cancel culture and public shaming belongs to 19th century.
Contact GNU.Support now. There is a simple rule at GNU.Support: if we can help you, we do, whenever and wherever necessary, and it's the way we've been doing business since 2002, and the only way we know