[GTALUG] Surveillance Capitalism [was another thread]

[Russell Reiter]

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 7:23 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/2/21 6:34 PM, Russell Reiter wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 5:46 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com
> <mailto:xerofoify at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 4/2/21 5:27 PM, Russell Reiter via talk wrote:
> >      > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, 4:38 PM Dhaval Giani, <
> dhaval.giani at gmail.com <mailto:dhaval.giani at gmail.com> <mailto:
> dhaval.giani at gmail.com <mailto:dhaval.giani at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      >> are all aware of. Many women were uncomfortable around
> RMS and avoided
> >      >      >> him. Many refused to participate in our community because
> of
> >      >      >> interactions with him. Do you think RMS is more important
> than a
> >      >      >> community of developers he is pushing away?
> >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      > See all the stuff you say we are all aware in this message
> is just rumors and innuendo to me.
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >      >     Wait, so all these women saying those words are rumours and
> innuendo?
> >      >
> >      >
> >     Greetings,
> >      > You know what, thats exactly what innuendo is, saying "all these
> women" without even a link to a personal quote from them, not a one.
> >     That's a  very dangerous to do. Lots of cases of mistreatment
> against minorities or other groups historically
> >     aren't reported because of power conflicts. I mean would you really
> we comfortable with staying the same
> >     thing if it was happening to children? I'm not stating the facts
> would hope up in a court but just stating
> >     to forget about them because there is no trail runs into this
> problem of power conflicts. Not to mention
> >     if they are stated then it runs into another problem of being traced
> back to them which is a dangerous
> >     in another light. Forgetting about this isn't a good idea.
> >
> >
> > You know there is a very famous loaded question journalists use to
> generate headlines, to which there is no
> > correct yes or no answer. "Have you stopped beating your dog/wife/child
> yet?. If you answer yes you are
> > damned as a dog/wife/child beater. If you answer no you are damned as a
> dog/wife/child beater.
> >
> That's not what I stated. The problem for you is that your assuming that
> power doesn't speak in the case with
> RM but does for IBM. You have to show why RM should get a break but not
> IBM. You can't just play favors.
>

The difference in power between an individual and a corporation I had
thought should be obvious. In case it is not
I do have a personal definition I use. A corporation has all the rights of
a person but has no human rights to speak of.

That's why I think Stallman should be allowed the benefit of the doubt, as
a person. His personal history seems to be
one of family dysfunction and then finding comfort and direction in studies
in computer science at university.


> > Mixing factual metaphors when someone's professional reputation is on
> the line, makes your question about children
> > just over the top for me. I'm not sure which is most dangerous to
> democracy, innuendo whether legal or other, or
> > actual slander and libel. So to answer your question, I never said
> forget about anything, I said do the research and
> > make your arguments. I said this to someone who dismissed me entirely by
> editing my post in order to invalidate me,
> > I guess as some sort of reactionary, instead of acknowledging that there
> may be more to this situation than meets
> > the eye.
> >
> > It's a sad fact of the internet and the newspeak of tabloid journalism,
> also known as yellow journalism apparently for
> > the colour of the cheap paper those inflammatory statements were
> published on, that sensational stories sell copy or
> > in the modern sense get you likes on twitter etc. It's a new kind of
> journalistic capitalism but journalistic capitalism
> > all the same.
> >
> > That's why I posted the link to someone who is digging deeper.
> >
> >      >
> >      >     You choose to disbelieve them? After a pattern of behaviour
> that
> >      >     multiple people have confirmed and talked about?
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > I can't disbelieve that which I can find no record of. What
> multiple people are you talking about?
> >      >
> >      > What I can do is check some facts, to the best of my abilities.
> This link I came across in my opinion has a more balanced view than yours.
> >      >
> >      > https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ <
> https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/> <
> https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ <
> https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/>>
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >      > What are not rumors and innuendo are the historical facts
> on IBM, their influence, their power and powerful friends and most
> importantly their big ball of money which they spend on influenceing the
> influencers.
> >      >      >
> >      >      >>
> >      >      >> I want to explicitly state this. RMS is a major reason
> free software
> >      >      >> is where it is. RMS's contributions to free software are
> gigantic.
> >      >      >> However, RMS cannot be a leader of our community if he
> continues to
> >      >      >> isolate a significant population of prospective
> developers. RMS the
> >      >      >> contributor - YES. RMS the leader - NO.
> >      >      >>
> >      >      >> RMS cannot be the poster child of our community if it is
> going to be
> >      >      >> relevant in the future.
> >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      > This is where being the willing poster child of a
> charitable institution, used to raise funds, diverges from the science of
> truth and innovation.
> >      >      >
> >      >      > In the legal science of truth, a person is innocent until
> proven guilty in a court of law. However, media and the media barons in
> conteol, crucify persons and their personas daily, just to make a buck.
> >     Sure but again your assuming being guilty in a court of law is
> better than being found guilty by the public.
> >     There is lots of evidence that the court system isn't as infallible
> as you think it is for both cultural
> >     and other reasons.
> >
> >
> > I never said I thought the court system was infallible. What I always
> try to say is that Canada is governed under the rule of law and nobody
> should be judged guilty without evidence and based on gossip, innuendo and
> worse, misstated and omitted facts.
> While again your assuming facts are the be all end on on this. Favors have
> to be interpreted and your
> stating that the legal system is better because that's how Canada is
> governed. That's my point you
> can't just appeal to authority like that you have to show why that's
> better. Your argument about IBM
> could be used against legal systems so being consistent shouldn't you be
> attacking the legal system
> as well?
>

You keep using the word favors and indicate they should be interpreted. I
don't follow this line of reasoning.

As for attacking the legal system as well. I'm not attacking anything, I'm
defending the right to free thinking and
free speech, at least I thought I was.

> >
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >      >     And no one has charged RMS with a crime. All we are saying
> is, he is
> >      >     not representative of a majority of us, and we don't want him
> to
> >      >     represent us. Some of us are minorities who have heard racist
> >      >     statements being made by prominent folks in the community and
> have
> >      >     made us feel our contributions are not valued. It is not hard
> to
> >      >     believe after that experience that other prominent folks can
> be
> >      >     sexist. RMS has not stepped up and owned up to his actions and
> >      >     apologized. I have no problem with people growing. We all make
> >      >     mistakes. But doubling down like this, well I don't want to
> be a part
> >      >     of that community. And the reality is, there are tons of
> "other"
> >      >     people who will not join in and we will never know. So yes,
> if the
> >      >     choice is between thousands of those people, having a diverse
> >      >     community, growing and being relevant to the world, I would
> rather RMS
> >      >     step down than us lose this community. And I would rather you
> leave
> >      >     the community if you think being more welcoming to other
> voices is not
> >      >     important. We don't need your contributions at the risk of
> alienating
> >      >     many more people.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > Wow that last paragraph was a completely off the wall projection
> of negative personal attributes towards RMS without a shred of evidence. I
> wasnt aware that Stallman was a deemed racist by association.
> >      >
> >      > Its bad enough that someone on this list deemed him to be an
> incel. Just type incel into google and you can see the links to terrorisim.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >     Again, I restate this. RMS as a contributor - yes. RMS as a
> leader -
> >      >     no. He doesn't represent me, and he certainly doesn't
> represent the
> >      >     community of foss developers. This is a discussion about RMS,
> not the
> >      >     conspiracy theories you are throwing about.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > I first came across evidence of survelance capitalisim at a tlug
> meeting in 2003 or so. So its not a theory to me, it is a fact of the
> corporation and its predatory nature in order to make profits for the
> investors.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > What conspiracy theories are you talking about.
> >      >
> >      > Survelance capitalisim is a real thing, funded by real
> corporations. Stallman is aware of this and pissed lots of people off by
> talking about it in public.
> >      >
> >      > Or are you saying IBM didn't develop software and market it to
> both sides of the conflict in WW2. Thats not a conspiracy its business as
> usual for a global corporation like them.
> >      >
> >      > Just to be clear, IBM weren't the only ones who made money from
> the holocost. You should read the quote about remembering the past on this
> site.
> >      >
> >      > https://www.holocaustcentre.com/HEW <
> https://www.holocaustcentre.com/HEW> <https://www.holocaustcentre.com/HEW
> <https://www.holocaustcentre.com/HEW>>
> >      >
> >      > Coca Cola sold its german equipment to a company now known as
> Fanta.
> >      >
> >      > Ford motors provided truck engines and parts to germany.
> >      >
> >      > Through a blind company Standard Oil provided their propritarey
> additive for gasoline to the Luftwaffe for their planes so they performed
> better at altitude.
> >      >
> >      > So let me phrase this issue a little differently once again.
> >      >
> >      > What part of the money which IBM used to purchase Red Hat, that
> came from investments made by IBM, after they obscenely profited by trading
> with the Nazis, is the amount you would be willing to use to fund your
> work, voluntarily or paid at Red Hat today.
> >      >
> >     So that's a  logical fallacy Russell you can't just attack someone's
> opinion by overextending it like that.
> >
> >
> > You think that's a logical fallacy and an over extension, how so?  Is it
> because a multinational corporation can spin itself off into other
> corporations and sever the past associations or change operations to a
> country of convenience, or all the other tools of making big money?
> >
> > Or don't you believe IBM made money from both sides of the second world
> war? That's pretty much a historical fact for survivors of the holocaust.
> >
> > So I'm still trying to figure out what conspiracy theory I was accused
> of propagating. I don't think what I said about IBM's acquisition of Red
> Hat is
> > a logical fallacy at all. I think it's all just business as usual for
> dominating US based corporate profiteers.
> >
> > But that's just my opinion.
> See:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
> Your comparing IBM's holocaust to RM's case meaning one is easier to
> defend.
>
>
> That's my final thoughts on this,
> Nick
>

Thanks for sharing.

>
> >
> >     Nick
> >      >
> >      >     Dhaval
> >      >
> >      > Russell
> >      >
> >      > “Th’ newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce
> an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes
> th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’
> comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward.” F. P. Dunne
> >      >
> >      > ---
> >      > Post to this mailing list talk at gtalug.org <mailto:talk at gtalug.org
> >
> >      > Unsubscribe from this mailing list
> https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk <
> https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>
> >      >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Russell
>
-- 
Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210402/c9ba221b/attachment.html>