>I'm actually one of those people who thinks that anonymity is overrated. Some people confuse privacy and anonymity and think they go hand in hand, and that protecting privacy means that you need to protect anonymity. I think that's wrong. Anonymity is important if you're a whistle-blower, but if you cannot prove your identity, your crazy rant on some social-media platform shouldn't be visible, and you shouldn't be able to share it or like it.
linuxjournal.com
Is he right?
Other urls found in this thread:
stallman.org
en.wikipedia.org
gnu.org
gnu.org
gnu.org
eff.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
No
Finland is right next to Sweden. That should tell you everything you need to know.
this shithole proves him wrong. om this place, only your words matter. if you talk like an idiot, no one will take you seriously. but if you provide solid argument, with sources, (maybe) someone will hear you.
wasn't his father a huge commie?
If you have an unpopular opinion, you should be willing to get fired, blacklisted, and socially ostracised. That's how freedom works: by people bravely accepting the chilling effect and never blaming people who use punishment as a form of censorship.
So, for example, if you were a communist around the 1980s, you should have put it in every resume and every job application you ever wrote. Because tying everything you write to your real online identity is equivalent to that.
this shithole proves him right. on this place you can rant and talk shit to let your feelings out, but it has no substance most of the time. At least asociating yourself with an identity makes you be more aware of telling reasonable stuff.
But on the other hand that awareness can get out of hand with censorship and snowflakes whom will delete your posts or harass you by having some opinion. So he's also wrong, anonymity is also important to start ideas that are a bit out of the politically correct side of stuff.
But real life is not like that, every idea is associated to a person. So I don't know, I guess yelling shit with no face is no change, you should be able to have freedom of speech regardless of your identity, which is not true irl, you will get censored if it offends people. So anonymity is not real progress towards freedom of speech, he's kind of right too
everything in this post is wrong.
I'm a Finn and I'm not sure what you're implying.
Before this turns into a garbage +300 replies thread full of shitpost
IT FUCKING DEPENDS
In the context of a social media site like Twitter or YouTube his comment makes all the sense in the world.
But if we are talking about anonymous image boards then of course not. Also notice that Jow Forums doesn't give a shit about your privacy.
>I am proud to identify myself when stating my views; I can afford to do that because I am in a fairly safe position. There are people who rationally fear reprisals (from employers, gangsters, right-wing extremists, or the state) if they sign their name to their views. For their sake, let's reject any social networking site which insists on connecting an account to a person's real identity.
stallman.org
being anonymous and having an identity are both cancerous for different reasons
Ok
I agree with him. Only faggots like to hide.
>this shithole proves him right. on this place you can rant and talk shit to let your feelings out, but it has no substance most of the time.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Truth is not just about purely discursive reasoning.
Linus is a bit of a retard when it comes to anything remotely intangible like contracts, licenses and social issues.
He really tries to BTFO Stallman in every interview he gets but can't.
surprisingly based
Stallman doesn't need anyone to BTFO him, he a good enough job of it himself
>dickless cucks
nice thumbnail, may i save and repost it?
Bait post is bait
>right-wing extremists
There's more chance a left-wing nutjob is gonna get the degenerate-brigrade to hound you outta dodge before a right-wing extremist.
RMS is a bit of a retard too, don't get me wrong.
There's value to his autism. You need someone with a strong sense of principles, who can overcome opponents and draw an impassable line.
>There's value to his autism
there actually isn't
hes an ideological extremist for an idea that doesn't make sense and has no value
Right-wing extremists are the ones who kill people.
>your crazy rant on some social-media platform shouldn't be visible, and you shouldn't be able to share it or like it.
Imagenboard non social media, no share it or like it.
Right, the lefties wait until after their revolution to start the purges
Yeah left-wing extremists just get you fired and ruin your reputation so you can never work again anywhere. No biggie.
Though guy writing cool "rants" backed by Linux Foundation, which is funded by nice companies like (((Google))), (((Facebook))) and (((Oracle))), now complaining about the most important ingredient of Freedom of Speech and privacy: Anonymity. Pathetic.
I never knew anything about stallman. Now i resprct him
better than dying
>the most important ingredient of Freedom of Speech and privacy: Anonymity.
anonymity has little to do with either of those
finns aren't. they are more chan than sweden.
*ahem*
Would you elaborate?
Ive heard multiple dismissals of RMS but they're all mostly irrelevant to what he stands for.
He is pretty much right.
>Would you elaborate?
Open source has value in the right context, like infastructure, software that runs other software (operating systems, drivers, etc)
The idea that absolutely everything should be open source and you have no choice in the matter is just retarded, 90% of software developers wouldn't be able to make a living because people wouldn't pay for things they can get for free
Its difficult to be private without being anonymous.
Free speech is only possible when you're free of fear.
>Its difficult to be private without being anonymous
I have windows and doors on my house despite my neighbors knowing my name
>Free speech is only possible when you're free of fear
That's your fault for being a coward
god damn it
>That's your fault for being a coward
Give me your full name and home address or forever remain a hypocrite.
Forgot (((Goldman Sachs)))
Today, Freedom of Speech is only possible if you're anonymous.
Why is he so based
Everyone on Jow Forums hates him
I'm not sure you understand what 'fear' is
Agreed.
>right-wing
Delete this little relic of the boomer-era and it's based as fuck.
MODS
>The idea that absolutely everything should be open source and you have no choice in the matter is just retarded
Why would you chose to run proprietary software if the same software was available as open sores?
>90% of software developers wouldn't be able to make a living because people wouldn't pay for things they can get for free
90% is probably an exaggeration. Companies already pay some open sores developers for support.
>hes an ideological extremist for an idea that doesn't make sense and has no value
>Open source has value in the right context, like infastructure, software that runs other software (operating systems, drivers, etc)
So which one is it?
You admit that there IS value to having freedom over the software you run. If you thought that your OS was insecure you wouldn't handle sensitive information on it.
>I have windows and doors on my house despite my neighbors knowing my name
Your neighbor probably doesn't have the means to keep tabs on you and also the other dozen households on the block.
Because you appear to be exactly like the other households your neighbor has no reason to pay special attention to you. That's anonymity.
>That's your fault for being a coward
Suppose you were adopted and your adoptive parents would beat you every-time you spoke in English.
Your fear of being beaten would compel you to stop speaking in English.
No one would call you a coward for trying to avoid a punishment.
>90% is probably an exaggeration. Companies already pay some open sores developers for support.
That's a minority. Most people do not develop open source software. RMS doesn't stand for 'open source', he said so himself, he calls it FOSS or libre or some retarded shit I don't know
Fpbp
JYNX!!
My neighbors could spy on me if they wanted to, alot easier than someone on the internet actually
and you're actually comparing people getting mad at you online to being beaten, stop being overdramatic
He calls it free open source software not open source software... This fuckin goy
RMS fights for free software, not open source. You miss a lot of things man.
Yes, there's a difference, one RMS is keen to point out
That's exactly what I said dumbass
Yes and no.
I think everyone should have some kind of unique ID number online to identify samefags without tying it to your real identity. You could have a couple of them for different purposes, but only a finite number.
Anonymity as in separating your ability to speak from your safety is extremely important. Anonymity as in being able to say anything, an arbitrary number of times, with zero impact on your credibility, is often harmful. And yes, I realize where I am on that last bit.
Time for some education.
>Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”
gnu.org
>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
gnu.org
What are you trying to educate me on exactly? I know the difference, open source has some practical use, free software is retarded
anonymity protects against personal attacks
Something can be open source and proprietary at the same time.
>he calls it FOSS or libre or some retarded shit I don't know
FLOSS for "Free (libre) and Open Source Software."
I'm not as autistic as he is so I just wrote open sores.
>That's a minority. Most people do not develop open source software.
Maybe more people should (they easily can)? Seriously, your kind of attitude is the reason I appreciate RMS so much.
>if they wanted to
Woosh.
You're still anonymous because they would have no reason to want to spy on you.
>and you're actually comparing people getting mad at you online to being beaten, stop being overdramatic
You decided to use an analogy first so I just stuck with it.
I picked the adopted kid story because its the opposite of being "overdramatic." The parent's discipline is like any consequence for excising free speech.
Eg. You wouldn't say nigger aloud in a room full of niggers partly because of that small fear.
>Maybe more people should (they easily can)? Seriously, your kind of attitude is the reason I appreciate RMS so much.
In RMS's ideal world all code would be open source and you would never have to pay for any of it which has far more negative reprecussions than positive, If you think an extremist on one end of the spectrum is good because people have gone too far in the other you're a simple-minded moron
>In RMS's ideal world all code would be free software
fixed, also gnu.org
Agreed 100%
and nobody has any reason to spy on me on the internet either, funny how that works
unless you mean impersonal survelliance of your habits in which case I guess my bank and electric company are spying on me too
You don't say nigger in a room full of niggers cause they'll beat you up
The worst thing anyone can do to you online is ban you, how frightening
ever heard of the thing called “mass surveillance"
yes
>you would never have to pay for any
You are wrong. It is for this specific reason that he says "free as in freedom, not free as in free beer". He doesn't say, ever, that charging for software is bad. You should merely release it under a license that respects the users freedom. You can still sell precompiled binaries, for example, something a lot of lazy people are willing to pay for. You should make the bulk of your cash from supporting and developing your shit though and not sales if you're looking to get a lot of money.
>which has far more negative reprecussions
Care to elaborate?
If all software were open source and it were legal to do as you wish with it then other people could compile your binaries and sell them and undercut you. Don't be a fucking moron. Making all your money from support and development is only viable if you're a contract developer. If you develop software to sell to the public you are fucked
His ideal world is a fantasy. It won't be realized anytime soon.
Still his advocacy is a positive step in that direction. You're not going to say that more open sores software is a BAD thing, are you?
>If you think an extremist on one end of the spectrum is good because people have gone too far in the other you're a simple-minded moron
So far RMS and his extreme advocacy have produced mostly benefits. The only "negative repercussion" so far is the regular drama, but that's entertaining to us.
I also "side" with gun-nuts, loliterians, nationalists, etc.
>unless you mean impersonal survelliance of your habits in which case I guess my bank and electric company are spying on me too
That's exactly what I meant. I wrote it too.
You shouldn't underestimate the wealth of information they have.
>You don't say nigger in a room full of niggers cause they'll beat you up
No shit.
Niggers have the power to stop you from saying Nigger. That makes you a coward in-front of niggers.
>So far RMS and his extreme advocacy have produced mostly benefits
It hasn't produced anything. He's been a joke for decades. Only sane open source movements have ever done anything for anyone
>I also "side" with gun-nuts, loliterians, nationalists, etc.
Yes it's already clear you have a low IQ
Linus was a Swedish minority Finn anyway.
>It hasn't produced anything.
Anything Ganoo and the GPL licenses. His advocacy has had a real impact.
>Yes it's already clear you have a low IQ
What did I say that's made you so angry, user?
Most people use the old, saner GPL license. And producing a license has no value on it's own. It's something anyone can do. It's what people agree to use, there's plenty of others out there to the same effect, or you can write your own. He did write some software decades ago that is useful, but that has nothing to do with his retarded ideology
>Most people use the old, saner GPL license
That's not true.
I'm afraid it is
anonymity doesn't impact anything other than a piece of speech having its ownership known to readers
there is no reason to care about it, therefore there is no reason to go to all the trouble of tracking identity/aliases in order to deny people the ability to do something that doesn't matter
therefore it matters, and its denial is sought after, but why?
Shii didn't know what he was creating when he brought the Japanese philosophy of Internet anonymity to the west. Knowing now just what he brought onto us, he's left the internet entirely.
And still no one knows who exactly he is. Because without an identity, who exactly are you?
You call his entire ideology retarded but you don't even get where he's coming from. Maybe the development of software and technology isn't worthwhile if that software has the potential to cause great harm.
By placing the value of the user above all we mitigate some of that thread.
Software that is in the control of other people can be used to exploit us.
All anonymous or pseudo-anonymous people who live on the internet are the same in real life, extremely anti-social wierdos who live with their parents in their 30s and probably have some fucked up sexual fetish
Software doesn't really have the potential to cause great harm unless you believe in AI memes which are far away from the current reality
>By placing the value of the user above all we mitigate some of that thread.
First of all what the fuck does that even mean, and secondly of course you should value the user above all, software exists to serve the people who use it
He's wrong. There are many valid reasons to publish something without connecting it to your actual identity, but I understand what he means in the context of social media and he has a valid idea, it's just not well formed.
eff.org
> GPLv3 differs from GPLv2 in following things:
> 1) Patents, i.e. you can't circumvent GPLv3 by using GPL software as something you build your software on, but then don't share it because while source code may be available, you patent the code. It was possible with GPLv2.
> 2) DMCA, i.e. you can't circumvent GPLv3 with using DMCA which makes circumventing DRM illegal in US. It was possible with GPL2.
> 3) Tivoization, i.e. you can't circumvent GPLv3 using digital encryption, when you release the source code, but not the necessary cryptographic keys.
Why would you think that using an older license which you can be circumvented is *saner*? I wonder who is behind this post.
>At least asociating yourself with an identity makes you be more aware of telling reasonable stuff.
That's why anonymity is crucial. Once you have to conform your speech to social norms, you are censored, and no longer have freedom of speech.
Don't ask me, there's a reason for the version 2/3 split
Someone clearly got to him.
It's why there should be public forums, anonymous forums, and pseudononymous forums and people shouldn't insist everything be done one way.
social norms exist within an anonymous context too
>Everyone on Jow Forums hates him
fuck off newfag
That was already addressed under the category of "employers". They would be the ones doing the retaliating in that case, not the left wing extremists. You could accuse the extremists of having undue influence, but ultimately the decision to shaft you is up to the spineless employer who may value reducing the PR budget over retaining your livelihood.
Imagine having this discussion with real names attached. Pretty sure some posters would phrase things differently or not post at all.
>Software doesn't really have the potential to cause great harm unless you believe in AI memes which are far away from the current reality
Literal malware can steal your personal information and banking information.
Software can be developed to actively spy on its user.
There are even bigger concerns. An OS, BIOS or CPU could be deliberately left with vulnerabilities to allow an attacker access.
Then there's shit like Facebook and other social media. I shouldn't even have to explain their dangers.
>software exists to serve the people who use it
Devs gotta eat, right?
Partly because Linus was retarded.
There's actually an interview were he rants about v3 and he's wrong about half of it.
That is true, but there are no repercussions for breaking them, or at least none that will affect you personally. You won't be discredited. You won't be black listed. You won't be killed. You won't be exiled. The only thing that can happen is people either accept or reject your ideas.
Absolutely not. He has no idea how fucked people are because of privacy issues. He seems to think data collection and AIs won't be used to enslave people.
Anonymous: Linus is overrated
/thread.
Unless you are a masochist, you don't want your privacy compromised like a pet dog.
Guns do.
>there's a reason for the version 2/3 split
The only major project still deliberately using v2 is Linux, and the only real reason for that is because every individual author of Linux retains copyright (GNU requires you sign it over) of their code and individually licenses it under v2, meaning switching would require the consent of everyone who has code in the kernel. You can imgaine what a clusterfuck that would be, even before considering some authors are literally dead and did not leave anyone with the rights to their code. Linus has some ramblings about v3 too, but they're irrelevant. Most other projects still using v2 are stuck for similar reasons.
Stallman is honest to god before his time because more people are going to commit to this shit given how controlled people are by this garbage. You lose your humanity the more info you give to social media. You stop being a person and you simply become a cell in the machine.
It was bad enough before the internet did this and now it's 1000x worse.
