muckrights-sans-merde
bonum fabula frat
### debunking-roys-latest-fsf-article
other pages:
=> muckrights-is-the-de-facto-propaganda-wing-of-the-fsf.html muckrights-is-the-de-facto-propaganda-wing-of-the-fsf
*originally posted:* sep 2021
typical muckrights fluff with empty assertions: http://techrights.org/2021/09/03/fsf-36/
its understandable that muckrights would want to talk about the fsf, but its the usual bullshit that i dont think roy even believes himself.
everybody knows what really happened, and they even talk about it in irc. in other words, i dont think roy even wants to defend the fsf anymore. i think he just wants to suck up to them to talk to stallman. of course thats not difficult for me to believe, when he threw me under the bus (for saying things he had already more or less said himself) to suck up to the fsf to talk to stallman.
what roy is doing right now is what i predicted in march (per the link at the top). at any rate, the apologetics continue-- theyre much more fun if we take them apart, so lets!
> Summary : Free software supporters should not forget that in the face of a rather vicious and corporate-backed online mob the FSF brought its founder back to the board
im aware that stallman is (technically) back. he has not exactly done anything (ANYTHING) since his return that flies in the face of the coup-led fsf however. its still nothing (and lots of it) as usual over there. it almost (not really though) feels wrong to blame roy for writing this nothing-piece, when nothing is all there is to say about the fsf.
if the fsf is actually doing anything, it fights for your freedom like a coward. i can (i might) overlook the fact that stallman went into hiding for a year or two, if when he comes back hes REALLY back. but i said when he came back that he would probably be used as more a "mascot" or a brand than a leader. this is the organisation using stallman (for what? donations, presumably. and shutting up critics who actually believe in free software-- even while handing more of the fsf over to the coup, in fact!) and i dont blame stallman for this. though hes about the only person who can fix it-- and thats also why it wont get fixed.
the fsf has kept its membership in a HOLDING PATTERN for years. while it originally stood for (indeed basically invented) the sort of progress weve seen in the software world, today it is part of the corporate ratchet effect where the monopolies twist software to the "right" (corporate control, more imposition over conversations, more control over development, more money involved-- as roy mentions-- and less autonomy) and the fsf locks that new effect in place, preventing it from turning "back" to the left. this is what happens in american fake-wing fake-partisan politics, and its what happens with open source vs. the fsf.
of course the reason for this is that both "sides" have been co-opted. the side that says you should have a monopoly on software was, according to stallman, never legitimate in the first place. free software said "lets be free" and open source said "cant we compromise?" and the fsf has replied: "yes, we can!"
and they have. for the past few years the fsf has done little BUT compromise-- on freedom, on speech, on the software itself. and even (as roys article admits) on funding. but its not ENTIRELY fair (at least it wasnt previously) to say they compromised on that, when they never had a principle of rejecting corporate money in the first place. if they didnt compromise on funding, what did they compromise on? principles.
but now that stallmans back (and as i said, this is the very point of his "return") we are supposed to put all that behind us and act like it didnt happen. in other words: you dont deserve answers, shut up and give us more money.
my question is this: FOR FUCKING WHAT?
the fsf doesnt fight, stallmans been "back" for half a year and the fsf still cowers like theyre in the middle of an air raid. muckrights triumphantly spends MONTHS saying ALL CLEAR! the petition failed! and the fsf continues to hide.
these are the people who "fight for your freedom". by saying things are different and doing nothing (AT ALL) differently than they did last year. its a sad fucking joke, but like roy theyre counting on a sucker or two. lets get back to his fluff piece:
> it has since then lessened its dependence on funding from large corporations
yes, they lost funding. or rather ibm SAYS they lost funding. theres a pattern ive noticed (im no expert on this stuff, tom knows way more about it) where corporate sponsors who have "gotten what they wanted" pull out anyway after a few years of running a non-profit that has a mission which conflicts with their goals. so the part where ibm says "youre bringing stallman back? fine! NO MONEY FOR YOU!" could be a cute way to throw the fsf under the bus for something (ibm had already attacked stallman when he left, they still attack him through the gnu project according to roy, which i find plausible) when they were going to stop giving money anyway.
if ibm wants to control the fsf, they can just do it through gcc and gdb. oh, shit. but the fsf is so busy fighting, it downplays that as well, while eben moglen is the only person (i know of) who is saying what the real issue about that is. what a shame.
but saying the fsf "lessened its dependence on funding" is a pretty adorable way to say they lost funding, its great p.r. shit.
"the fsf lost money and now they want more of yours!" not so great.
"the fsf lessened its depedendence on funding, so you should join!" wheres the drake meme? its perfect for this.
we will get back to this theme of funding, since its really the only premise of roys article, and its half-arsed.
> which means it deserves more supporters or donations from individuals who value software freedom
bahahahahahahahahahahaha...
anyway...
> THE past few years we wrote hundreds of articles about the Free Software Foundation (FSF), which is 36 this year (it turns 36 in one month and one day). Yes, 36.
a pretty impressive number, really. its divisible by 3, 6 and 9. pythagoras would fucking love it. tesla would be a fan. and NEXT year its the big three-seven, followed by "yes, 38."
> A lot older than Linux
a lot older BECAUSE of linux. or maybe it just seems older because its so fucking bloated and used up now. oh sorry, we were talking about the fsf, not gnu.
> In past years we noted that the FSF had become a little dependent on a bunch of rather large companies
and they fucking still are. which is what makes roys article such a farce. the fsf has traded one loss of autonomy for several others in the bargain, and roy lights up like dobby with a new sock.
the gist of his whole article is "IBM IS GONE!" (cue dancing crabs) so now the fsf is finally freeeeeeeee! but we all know if it really was, we would see it in more than just the fucking budget numbers. maybe roy has finally given up pretending hes pamela jones and now thinks hes the financial times.
> -- which we estimated (based on IRS filings) to account for about half of the FSF's budget.
maybe he can still change his phd to financial analysis.
> The FSF is definitely still effective and it deserves our support.
empty assertion. he makes no mention of how they are effective, not only because he was distracted or has "lots of other articles" to write, but because theres absolutely nothing to say about how the fsf has been effective. theres nothing. for YEARS now. he goes right back to the closest thing the article has to a point:
> It's not sucking the teat of Google or IBM or any other very large company.
but it WAS. and if you see the standard roy holds other organisations to (see the aral balkan quote for an example) then once youve taken money from the wrong people, youre done. which is often true, by the way. but thats what makes the article so funny-- if it is true (not asserted here, only in other conversations that roy has participated in) that taking money one fiscal year taints you forever as he has implied before, then isnt the fsf tainted forever as well?
no, because fsf-exceptionalism. if other organisations are tainted, then they cannot become untainted. only the fsf can do that, (even when it hasnt!)
the evidence of corruption (apart from the cause, which is a bit of a nitpick at times and hopefully, hopefully a relevant point at some point ever) matters more than the cause, until there is evidence of corruption. AFTER there is evidence of corruption, the cause matters much, much more.
which isnt to say i think organisations should accept "bad money" and just hope for the best. they should absolutely avoid it. but it means that much more when you can point to the effect and say "and this is why they shouldnt have taken that money".
with the fsf, you could easily do that. with the fsf, you can STILL easily do that.
roys premise seems to be, and for the fsf solely, that bad money is like a light switch or "transistor of corruption"-- when the money flows from here, the corruption is "on"... when the bad money stops, the corruption is "off"! the reason its like this for the fsf and nobody else of course, is that the fsf is digital while all other not-for profit organisations are analog.
but roy needs to get his logic probe out (im sure if he checks his pockets he can find it somewhere) and test his theory. i think he will find that (as usual) its bullshit.
> It can take a year or two to gain public access to IRS filings which correspond to a present year, but we suspect that a large majority of the FSF's budget comes from supporters (which in FSF terms means individuals, not corporations which are dubbed "patrons").
once youve made a baseless argument with no real effect on (or cue from) the reality of the situtation, double down with some extraneous details to make it look "official".
> In the video above (first video in a while that uses an external camera) I take a look at last night's posts from the FSF. They hire additional people and they still speak out against Apple.
sounds like theyre courting an "isponsor"; ignu they would. maybe when tim cook retires from apple he can be president of the fsf. hes got plenty of experience with not changing anything, so he should fit the (currently occupied) position nicely.
> The FSF is definitely still effective and it deserves our support. It's not sucking the teat of Google or IBM
like it used to...
> or any other very large company.
its not even true though. the fsf (which holds the copyright and provides the infrastructure to gnu) outsources the crown jewels to ibm (red hat) specifically. all thats changed is who owns red hat (and with it, the crown jewels of free software).
when ibm already has you by the balls, why would they need to bribe you on top of that?
> "Just had someone DM me saying they got Google money for their NGO and Google might be terrible but taking their money doesn’t make your organisation bad. So I told them I could probably get them funding from Saudi Arabia and they went silent." -- Aral Balkan this week
read this quote again in the actual context of the fsf situation, and tell me what it proves about a not-for-profit that ALREADY was corrupted by money from there, or anywhere else.
i dont think roy and i differ on whether its a bad idea to take money from giafam-- its a terrible idea.
i think we differ (or at least, he pretends to differ) on whether it fucked up the fsf in a way that is STILL a problem, and i think we differ on whether another organisation can recover from such a fuckup.
either way, i think its rare for an organisation to come back from that kind of thing, which is why its so much better to avoid in the first place. but the results are still key here, and roy is pretending that the fsf has recovered. theres no evidence that they have-- but the CAUSE of their corruption is reduced, and all they need NOW is for you to throw more money at them. again. how many more years will this farce continue? and why doesnt roy realise (or care) that hes basically encouraging the fsf to defraud the public?
they dont fight. even roy himself said this week, stallman [probably] lacks courage. but he was only saying that to cover up a lie he told about stallman and systemd, which roy made up in the first place. if the fsf doesnt fight for anything, roy will just make shit up instead.
but then again, thats what i said he would do.
=> https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org