which ones do you think I missed?

image transcription:

big collage of people captioned, “the only people I wouldn’t have minded being billionaires”
names(and a bit of info, which is not included in the collage) of people in collage(from top left, row-wise):

  • Alexandra Elbakyan, creator of Sci-Hub. perhaps the single-most important person in the scientific community regarding access to research papers.
  • Linus Torvalds, creator of linux kernel and git, courtesy of which we have GNU/Linux.
  • David Revoy, french artist famous for his pepper&carrot, a libre webcomic. inspiration for artists who are into free software movement
  • Richard Stallman, arch-hacker who started it all. founded the GNU project, free software movement, Emacs, GCC, GPL, concept of copyleft, among many other things. champions for free software to this day(is undergoing treatment for cancer at the moment).
  • Jean-Baptiste Kempf, president of VLC media player for 2 decades now
  • Ian Murdock, founder of Debian GNU/Linux and Debian manifesto. died too soon.
  • Alexis Kauffmann, creator of framasoft, a French nonprofit organisation that champions free software. known for providing alternatives to centralised services, notable one being framapad and peertube.
  • Aaron Swartz, a brilliant programmer who created RSS, markdown, creative commons, and is known for his involvement in creation of reddit. he also died too soon.
  • Bram Moolenaar, creator of vim, a charityware.

on the bottom right is the text reading, “plus the thousands of free software enthusiasts working tirelessly.”

avidamoeba,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

If they were billionaires, they likely wouldn’t be the people they are today.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I meant billionaires for their actions and creations, and not by birth like most techbros are.

Cralder,

That’s worse. You see how that is worse right?

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

yeah, now I do see that.

NAXLAB,

That seems worse because it means they went out of the way to get so rich, rather than just having it handed to them.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I was thinking more along the lines of “if they had that much money, their projects could’ve received more impact.”
like if free software would become mainstream.

though now I realise that’s an idealistic view and with money, people will become corrupt.

avidamoeba,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

If they received a lot of money from their work and they used it to increase the impact of their projects, they wouldn’t be billionaires. The money would have been spent on the projects. If Linus headed a non-profit that received 10B a year revenue and spent most of it, leaving Linus with 0.5M-1M yearly salary, he wouldn’t be a billionaire and the billions spent on the Linux project would have had a significant impact. If on the other hand he pocketed 1B a year, there would be 1B less for the Linux project. And Linus would have been/become a different person.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

then the lore of Linyos Torvoltos would’ve been true :p

NAXLAB,

I’d strongly disagree there too. Y’know basically the entire internet runs on Linux right? Our global communication system containing the sum of all human knowledge is like 99% Linux servers. And the reason a whole bunch of companies sponsor the hell out of Linux now is because it’s just that good and just that important on a global scale.

empireOfLove,

But of course, such based individuals will never be billionaires. Specifically because their basedness precludes them from being psychopathic enough to commit the kind of cutthroat, violent exploitation of tens of thousands of workers’ labor inherently necessary to amass such wealth.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

when you put it that way, I realise how being so rich is anti to what most of these people are known for.

speaking of which, here’s a to-scale representation of how rich some people are.

Cralder,

It’s nice to appreciate people who do good things, but keep in mind that the only way people become billionaires is by exploiting people. So I would not want any of these people to be billionaires because it would mean they got that wealth not by doing good things, but by owning ridiculous amounts of capital and exploiting people.

Rant over, sorry.

ricecake,

I could see someone making something useful and selling it to billions of people at a fair price not being exploitative and also being a billionaire.

I think it’s rare to the point of maybe happening once ever, but I’m not super upset about the behavior of the guy currently bankrolling the signal foundation.

Cethin,

The problem is if you aren’t exploitative then you aren’t being as “efficient” (in a capitalist sense) so you’ll be out-competed. The system is designed to incentivize exploitation. It’s mis-aligned to do anything else.

ricecake,

Oh, the system is totally pushing everyone to try to be the worst person possible.
However, they might not actually be out competed if they’re not being as exploitative as possible. If they’re not charging as much as the market will tolerate they’re being inefficient but in the way costs profit but attracts consumers.
I literally only have one billionaire who might not be a problem, but that’s what they did. $1 for a year of access sold to a few billion people, with something like 50 employees.

It’s why the billionaires who shaft consumers and their workers are so gross. Reducing profit margins doesn’t impact efficiency, it only impacts money in their already overstuffed pockets.

maryjayjay, (edited )

Paul McCartney is a billionaire. What people did he exploit?

I think Taylor Swift is now worth a billion dollars, despite being the exploited

folkrav, (edited )

Let’s reformulate. No single individual gets to a billion dollars of net worth without someone getting fucked over in the process. The very concept of any one individual having a net worth of hundreds of times the one of the next 99.9% is fucking absurd, regardless of what they did. Nobody “deserves” multiple lifetimes worth of wealth while half of the world’s population is living with dollars a day. It would take collectively for this world’s billlionaires, the equivalent of us foregoing buying a gaming PC (in relative terms) to get rid of world hunger, yet they choose not to. So, yes, they are actively fucking people over by having so much wealth in the first place.

maryjayjay,

How much money should someone be allowed to have?

RegalPotoo,
@RegalPotoo@lemmy.world avatar

Simply by having a billion dollars means they have decided to hoard that wealth. They could give away 90% of it, leaving them with $100 million, it wouldn’t impact their quality of life in any way, and still leave them with more wealth than 99.9% of the planet. Imagine the good that $900 million could do if it was put to good use rather than sitting in a bank account as a status symbol - having the capability to do that good with no impact on yourself or your family and choosing not to makes you an immoral person.

Billionaires shouldn’t exist. At all.

lauha,

While I agree with your sentiment, the truth is, none of those billionaires have their billions sitting on their bank account, like I have my couple hundred dollars.

hersh,

I doubt any billionaires have that much money “sitting in a bank”.

Most wealth is non-liquid. For example, if you found a company that becomes massive, and you maintain a controlling share, then you could be a billionaire on paper while having no real money to spend – the only way to turn that into “real” money would be to sell shares in the company, and thus lose control of it. If the company is doing good work, it could be better to retain control and act through the company, by ensuring that it pays employees good wages to do good work for the benefit of society. This is not completely incompatible with profit in theory, though in practice…yeah. I’m not sure if there are any such billionaires in the world today.

The real problem is more fundamental to the economy, in that it fairly consistently rewards bad behavior.

Larry Page basically became a billionaire overnight when Google went public. I don’t recall Page or Google doing anything especially evil or exploitative before that, though their success was certainly built in an unsustainable economic bubble.

If Amazon didn’t treat its employees like shit and poison the entire economy, then Bezos could probably still be a billionaire and I wouldn’t necessarily hold that against him.

Steve,

“Have” vs “control”

maryjayjay,

How much money should a person be allowed to have?

lolcatnip,

A lot less than a billion. The exact amount is negotiable.

RegalPotoo,
@RegalPotoo@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t know, but there probably should be a line somewhere. More wealth than 99.9% of the rest of the planet sounds like a good place to start

HauntedCupcake,

10 Million. Rising in pace with minimum wage

SpongyAneurism,

McCartney and Swift ‘exploit’ tons of people as well. They might flagship their music artist operation themselves and kind of ‘be’ the product (or rather the brand), but there are lots and lots of people involved to make tours and shows possible, recording, production and especially distribution of music and merch involves labour as well.

In addition to that: I don’t think they store all that money on a nice little heap in their backyard. It usually gets invested into some sorts of corporations, be it through the stock market, where it will accrue revenue, that comes as the result of more exploitation.

That being said: the term ‘exploitation’ carries a much more negative connotation than would be beneficial for the conversation. It’s concept of marxist economics, and the term ‘Ausbeutung’ = exploitation was used by Marx himself to describe how capitalists benefit from the surplus that workers produce. I like the term ‘reaping the surplus’ better because it doesn’t carry as much of a negative connotation. The criticism of capitalism shouldn’t barely rely on the fact that surplus is being taken away from the workers, but from the consequences to society and the political system that inevitably follow when that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a minority.

Sagifurius,

Ok, so who did Taylor Swift exploit? She literally is just a singer and the whole thing is odd, but it’s more she’s a billionaire because the currency is worthless.

dominiquec,
@dominiquec@lemmy.world avatar

Her ex-boyfriends.

Sagifurius,

oh no. they had to fuck taylor swift. boo fucking hoo

demonsword,
@demonsword@lemmy.world avatar

her little private jet already put out more CO^2 this year alone than everyone on lemmy combined

billionaires are shitty people, period.

s0phia,
@s0phia@lemmy.world avatar

She didn’t (maybe). Record labels did.

Zangoose,
@Zangoose@lemmy.world avatar

I choose to see this question as “If you could magically just make someone a billionaire, who deserves it,” or more specifically “who would actually do good things with the money if they had a billion dollars.”

As you said, the reason these people aren’t billionaires already is because they haven’t been exploiting others. That being said, there are likely a few people that would use the money to better support a lot of great causes, like the Free Software Foundation, medical research, or climate change action

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

it’s alright mate. your rant helped me see things in a different light. so thank you.

yesman,

Well said. Thinking billionaires are assholes because they’re naturally shitty is like thinking they got rich by being naturally hard working.

Take landlords for example. You can be the nicest person in the world. The kind of person who makes friends with the tenant. What do you think happens to you after you’ve evicted a few of your friends?

Systems are a bitch.

cerement,
@cerement@slrpnk.net avatar

agree with @avidamoeba, power corrupts – radix malorum est cupiditas

dojan,
@dojan@lemmy.world avatar

You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire.

Rozauhtuno,
@Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire

And to STAY a billionaire. If you have immense power to do good, and every single morning you wake and choose not to, you are an evil ghoul driven by greed, period.

AllonzeeLV, (edited )

I love how so many of them demand love and acclaim for claiming they will give their money away… when they die.

You want me to sing your praises because you won’t use the money you made exploiting countless laborers and lobbying government to benefit yourself above society to anoint a handful of nepo babies to wield that power after you as some part of a new nepo dynasty? Gee thanks?

Its like a serial killer promising not to train his children in the family business. Its not doing good, just doing slightly less bad. Except billionaires cause damage on a far greater scale.

woelkchen,
@woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire.

Jeffrey Epstein supporter and pedophile Richard Stallman would qualify then?

dojan,
@dojan@lemmy.world avatar

If he’s willing to trample all over people, exploit them, and have them die for his sake, then absolutely.

Billionaires don’t care about people. They don’t view others as human. To them workers are robots, a statistical means to an end. Who cares if someone dies in some factory/warehouse somewhere? There’ll be another to replace them before the end of the day.

A billionaire gladly takes the effort of others and claims it as their own. They go out of their way to do it.

That’s not to say that every evil person acting like this will automatically become a billionaire, but you need to be OK with doing these things in order to get there. A billion USD is such an insane sum you cannot legitimately accumulate that without hurting people in the process. Like there’s no logical way of actually earning that amount of money. That’s money you take.

woelkchen,
@woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

Billionaires don’t care about people. They don’t view others as human.

Whereas peophiles and forces sex labor apologists are super empathetic.

dojan,
@dojan@lemmy.world avatar

Guillotine for the lot, I say.

TheGrandNagus,

Hoooo boy people here get angry when you remind them of Stallman being outspokenly pro-paedophilia.

woelkchen, (edited )
@woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

Probably the same people who claim that Threads is going to be toxic for the fediverse…

s_s,

All libertarians start and end at the same place.

At least Stallman championed other liberties, too.

BestBouclettes, (edited )

Or divorcing Jeff Bezos.

Joke aside, apparently she has a hard time spending enough money to lower her net worth (currently at $40B). Which is an absolutely bonkers amount of money, no one ever should have that much.

HerbalGamer,
@HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

As if a good person would’ve married him in the first place.

BestBouclettes,

She married him in 1993 way before Amazon happened, maybe he wasn’t a gigantic ass back then. I don’t know much about her, but she seems decent from what I can see, she has donated massive amounts of money to charitable causes.

RoyaltyInTraining,
@RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world avatar

How would they earn billions without getting the money from other people’s work?

ininewcrow,
@ininewcrow@lemmy.ca avatar

Aspiring to becoming and staying a billionaire requires a certain amount of psychopathy because it takes a certain mentality to want to own so much wealth that you’ll never be able to enjoy all of it in a lifetime while at the same time denying or taking away the wealth of others who might need it.

If I had a billion, I’d take a few million and live off the interest and give away the rest and not be bothered by anyone or anything ever again.

youpie,
@youpie@lemmy.emphisia.nl avatar

I dont want anybody to be a billionaire, also they couldn’t because to be one you have to be exploitative and a bad person

tygerprints,

That's not necessarily true. My cousin is the nicest person you could meet, he was a programmer who tinkered around with a package delivery tracking system, and Fexex bought him out for almost 2 billion. He became one of our wealthiest citizens overnight. And he's amazing, he doesn't exploit people and he is not a bad person by any definition.

owenfromcanada,
@owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

Did he keep the 2 billion for himself?

I think the point is that anyone who gets and keeps that much money is not a good person. A billion dollars is more than any person could ever need for themselves. Consider that having a meager 10 million in the bank at a pitiful 2% return of interest would provide $200,000 per year, which is a very comfortable life. Who can justify keeping 100x that? And how can you justify it when a tiny fraction of that would revolutionize thousands of people’s lives?

NAXLAB, (edited )

Idk man we just saw a week ago how atrociously Linus used to treat people. Imagine combining that with enough greed to hold onto a billion dollars. Imagine what any of these people would be like if they were the type to ruthlessly exploit others to get rich. I think a billionaire Linus would be worse than Bill Gates. At least Gates is a nice guy.

It is the act of holding onto that much wealth that is immoral, not who is doing it. This is just fantasizing from a painfully neoliberal perspective: OP is imagining the world would be better if the good guys hoarded inconceivable amounts of wealth and exploited the labor of others.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I have a question:
almost every single person that you know as a good guy may have a little but of an uncanny side. at which point does a person not remain an overall good person?

or do we take the person for who he/she is, and use(and learn from)his/her actions as an example, both good and bad ones?

I’m asking primarily because I don’t know an answer to it.

VubDapple,

I haven’t met gates and I agree these days he comes across pleasantly, but perhaps you are not old enough to remember stories of what he was like in his 30s and 40s when Microsoft was younger. He was a tyrant and viscously anticompetitive. As a husband my understanding is that he cheated on his wife (not uncommon I know but still hurtful). He might have become a somewhat better person, maybe, but he certainly wasn’t one when he was making his fortune.

NAXLAB,

Oh yeah I know how predatory of a businessman he was, I just assumed he did it politely.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I have an unfavourable view of gates despite his philanthropic actions. mainly because of his buying of large farmlands and his opposition to freely licence astra zeneca’s vaccine.

tygerprints,

And even if it's contrary to popular opinion, I don't mind Bill Gates being a billionaire. I mean, I'd love to have invented the sole operating system for Windows and get all that money. My feeling is, if you make something that worthy you deserve to get paid over and over again.

cerement,
@cerement@slrpnk.net avatar

there’s still stories going around that Gates copied chunks of CP/M …

tygerprints,

I'm sure he didn't really invent the system out of whole cloth, most great inventions were copied from ideas of others.

owenfromcanada,
@owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

The problem with that thinking is that his wealth wouldn’t be possible without a ton of other people’s work. His work relied on hardware and other software, and was built on the work of his predecessors, like all software is. He certainly came up with a good product and did well with it, but it wasn’t done in a vacuum. There’s no such thing as a “self-made” billionaire.

I can’t believe that anything that one person produces is worthy enough for a billion dollars. It’s like saying it’s worth more than a year’s worth of work from 65,000 people (based on min wage in the US). Nothing can be worth that much, in my opinion.

tygerprints,

Oh I don't dispute that, I couldn't list all the names that I'm sure were involved in making Windows a viable system. I think a lot of them did make tons of money, at least I hope so. I don't mean to suggest one man invented the whole thing by himself.

My question is if no one man is worth a billion dollars - why are athletes worth several million. Unions aside, I know these people would be playing their sport even if nobody paid them at all. And I'm not saying they don't work hard. I just don't see how anything one person does in sports is worth several millions of dollars a year.

owenfromcanada,
@owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

I’m with you in that I think some athletes are overpaid. That being said, there’s so much difference between several million and a billion.

For reference, one million seconds is 11 days. One billion seconds is 31 years. The numbers don’t seem that different when they’re written down, because our brains can’t really grasp those numbers, but the difference is enormous.

I agree with bringing into question earnings like some athletes get, but the billionaire problem is much bigger and more urgent.

tygerprints,

That's also true, though at some point I think having hundreds of millions might just as well be the same as having billions. Not saying I would turn it down either - if someone offered me that kind of salary to do what I love. But I do have two relatives who are considered (on paper) to be billionaires, a cousin and my older brother. My brother bought a 19 million dollar mansion in Florida and now wants me and me mum to come live with him there - it's very tempting. I mean to him, money isn't an object because, it's not something he has to worry about.

In a way it's nice, in a sort of Great Gatsby way - being around the rich makes you feel rich, and you get to benefit from the blessings. I don't think it's necessarily an evil thing to be that rich. A lot depends on what you do with that money and also, whether you made it on the backs of slave labor or exploitation (and in many cases it's almost impossible not to have done so).

pHr34kY,

He stepped back from running his company and got into philanthropy. That’s what all billionaires should do.

Once you’ve taken enough, you’ve gotta work on how to give it all back.

tygerprints,

Well I agree, that's actually why I mentioned Bill Gates. He does a give a lot back in philanthropic enterprises and also just to give to charities. And I agree that is something you should do if you have more money than God and King Midas combined.

squiblet, (edited )
@squiblet@kbin.social avatar

It would probably ruin them and their work though. While I have little sympathy for the plights of billionaires, it's difficult for people to not allow that level of ridiculous wealth and power to affect them. These people have found a much healthier path to success. I'm sure the living ones are all financially comfortable without the ridiculous distortion of excess wealth.

Also though I'd object to anyone being a billionaire since it's absurd.

AllonzeeLV, (edited )

No one should have that much power.

I wouldn’t have trusted Fred Rogers with a billion dollars, and he’s practically the only famous stranger I could have seen trusting with my newborn alone.

It’s a society warping level of wealth. No single, unelected, unaccountable person should possess that much uniltateral power.

The global allowance encouragement of such an exploitative, reckless goal is why we are in our various bleak situations.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

that’s a good point. if i get it right, you mean that since wealth is a resource, it should always be in the hands of those who are accountable(like the government)?

AllonzeeLV, (edited )

I mean when wealth reaches levels beyond material comfort, needs, and wants, when it becomes easy to warp society. Billionaire’s lifestyles doesn’t change AT ALL between 1 billion and 2, its about expanding power. That is what capital becomes at those levels.

Politicians swoon over you for “donations” (bribes), you begin to see regulations over the industry you exploit your profit from as amendable through lobbyists you can hire to represent your interests over society. Meanwhile that billionaire’s factory workers, customers concerned with product safety, our shared commons, and our communal environment have no advocates with such massive influence to counter them, when the needs of the many shouldn’t just balance the needs of the interests of the wealthy few at the top, they should far outweigh them. As it is, its the other way around. The billionaires have the resources to take care of themselves and protect themselves, most of society does not.

No one should have enough wealth to have more influence over society than your single vote allows. If you want more power, that should come by selling your ideas to society that votes on them by putting you into a political office, with ALL of the rules and accountability that comes with that office.

The White House and Senate often invites the billionaires of industries to be the authority on how those industries should be regulated, and it’s perverse. The Foxes advising on hen house security.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

thanks for explaining

Bipta,

No one should have enough wealth to have more influence over society than your single vote allows.

That's an implausible metric. As long as there is not communistic equality, there will always be discrepancies in influence.

AllonzeeLV, (edited )

Which is why the absurdity of letting someone accumulate a billion dollar plus discrepancy is so glaring.

There won’t be because the game is already rigged, over, captured, and hoplesss, but there needs to be a maximum net worth at which point the winners of the economy’s excess wealth is siphoned away to benefit the society that provided the conditions for that success in the first place. YOU WON! Now go enjoy having enough wealth to live 100 embarrassingly gluttonous lifetimes while we use the excess millions and billions to build Schools you can send your kids to and roads you can drive your collection of multimillion dollar supercars on. I know, I know, that would be eviiil and crueeel. A real victimization amirite? /s

Why is it a tragedy if the maximum wealth one person can hold is half a billion? Or better 100 million? They won’t want to keep “excelling” and working? Awesome, makes room for people without that kind of money to succeed.

There’s a damn good reason in game design why you NEED to have drains and hard limits and maximums in any multiplayer economy. The game would fucking break or leave players miserable. But not here irl where there are actual stakes. Nope.

Bipta,

No one should have that much power.

How do you reconcile that with government leaders having that much power?

AllonzeeLV, (edited )

With elections that monied interests can no longer purchase and disproportionately propagandize with their essentially limitless power/capital.

They have politicians work against the people, then buy enough ad propaganda to convince people that was a good decision in their interests without that, politicians would rise and fall moreso on what they do in office.

We are the weird ones in the developed world for allowing unlimited private money to pollute our politics, elections, and even buy sitting politicians though legalized political bribery superpacs. It got this way because of the influence of the wealth class being allowed in the first place using that in to expand its own power and ability to bribe, culminating in Citizens United.

I think our eventual collapse will be tied directly to that SCOTUS decision.

RegalPotoo,
@RegalPotoo@lemmy.world avatar

Because in countries with functioning democracies, political power is narrowly scoped (your electors give you a mandate to do certain things, and if you act contrary to those interests you loose your power) and fleeting (you only have power as long as your electors continue to entrust that power to you, and can remove that power if they decide you are no longer fit to wield it).

Money, by contrast, is permanent (capital breeds capital) and unaccountable (you can choose to use the power your wealth grants without any regard for what others think - even if people disapprove, they can’t stop you spending it)

Murdoc,

"The government has a defect: it’s potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they’re pure tyrannies.”

— Noam Chomsky
(Not exactly the same, but very similar.)

owenfromcanada,
@owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

The only exception I can think of is Dolly Parton. I read a report that suggested she’d be among the world’s wealthiest if she weren’t consistently giving away 90%+ of her income.

The problem is that anyone with that much wealth has already proven their selfishness by not giving away most of it. It’s the classic issue of “Anyone who can be elected should never be elected.”

HerbalGamer,
@HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Recently saw a post somewhere proposing a new style of Government, where we just give the money to Dolly Parton and just kinda let her do her thing with it.

owenfromcanada,
@owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

Wouldn’t be the worst option out there, but I wouldn’t wish that on the woman.

DavidGarcia,

Terry A. Davis

Rozauhtuno,
@Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Ian Murdock, founder of Debian GNU/Linux and Debian manifesto. died too soon.

ACAB

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I never heard the acronym before.
also, you could say that in case of Aaron Swatrz too.

Mubelotix,
@Mubelotix@jlai.lu avatar

What do people shout when they are hurt by police then?

beSyl,

Why are you saying that in relation to Ian? What do cops have to do with him?

kadu,
@kadu@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    nixcamic,

    IMO RMS already has the attitude of a billionaire. He’s a thoroughly weird man who says stuff he really shouldn’t then stands by it. He’s right about a lot of things when it comes to software, licensing, and open source in general but outside of that track he’s more than a little loopy.

    I think it might be because he’s had to fight society so long for things he knew he was right about that now he doesn’t know how to have people tell him “no Richard, that’s ducked up”.

    Anyhow, I don’t think him being a billionaire would be a good idea, him having enough funds to branch off into doing wherever strikes his fancy could be very bad.

    And Linus, I love Linus but look at how he’s grown as a person and listened and changed how he interacts with other kernel developers. Would he still have been as receptive if he was a billionaire? Something tells me no.

    rodolfo,

    wha?

    lemmesay, (edited )
    @lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    you can read everything in great detail and with citations here if you have the bandwidth.

    but I’m not sure if the commenter is mixing two unrelated accusations towards him.

    stallman is known for his fixation on certain choice of words, which is the reason most people get him wrong. that’s why I shared the link to read his exact words and make up your mind by yourself.

    rodolfo,

    the man sure doesn’t know how the read the room… and when to shut up.

    lolcatnip,

    He did not. Go find his exact words if you don’t believe me.

    WldFyre,

    Why don’t you link his exact words, then?

    TheGrandNagus, (edited )

    Since the other person hasn’t (surprise), here’s Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

    “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

    RMS on June 28th, 2003

    "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006

    "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    WldFyre,

    Yeah I’m not surprised either haha

    Thanks for the quotes, what an appalling man smh

    TheGrandNagus,

    Yeah. He had/has some great ideas when it comes to free software, but it doesn’t mean he isn’t a POS in other parts of his life.

    I’m tired of the Linux world literally worshipping him. It’s weird. Hilariously it’s no doubt the same people who would cringe at the cultish following of Steve Jobs. Another person with some good ideas but was an awful person.

    TheGrandNagus,

    Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

    “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

    RMS on June 28th, 2003

    "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006

    "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    lemmesay,
    @lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    I understand your point, but those weren’t the words he said. though I don’t think that’s going to make a difference.

    I like RMS for what he did(and is doing) for the free software community. I can also talk about some uncanny things about Gandhi, but that doesn’t make his contribution to the independence movement and his views on nonviolence any less relevant.

    to me, a person should be seen in his entirety. because only fictional characters are without flaws.

    natecox,
    @natecox@programming.dev avatar

    People should indeed be seen in their entirety, the failure of this is why so many people get upset about Stallman.

    The guy is routinely portrayed as a bastion of righteous good will, championing the little guy against the evil corporations. The hero worship is real.

    Some of us see Stallman as a misogynistic asshole who routinely belittles people on mailing lists when they don’t agree with him and publicly defends people who sexually abuse children.

    For some of us, it feels like we need to go out of our way to point this out because we don’t want a guy like that as the public face of something we care about.

    rodolfo, (edited )

    what did it he say about women that makes him a misogynist?

    Edit ok found this

    www.arp242.net/rms.html

    a pretty much reasonable, reasoned and merciless account on the figure of rms. I very largely agree with it - spoiler he isn’t a misogynist, just a super massive weirdo

    ReCursing,
    @ReCursing@kbin.social avatar

    just a super massive weirdo

    I once heard him described as "The smartest man to ever throw a tantrum like a 4 year old"

    rodolfo,

    this thread is terrible… people reporting "I heard of"s as proofs. eh once I read, eeeh once someone told… once sjws bite, there’s no chance they let go. and the most important thing is that 99.999999% of the people bad mouthing rms have at best fifth hand reports about him.

    to all the superior etichs white knights: I’m not defending rms.

    I’m very worried about the lynching, with proof based on I once read, i heard of, and also straight out of jealousy and envy.

    rms, like suggested in the article I posted, could very well be a neuro divergent person. I wonder how many of all of these rabid dogs biting at him preach themselves as super supportive, super inclusive, 360° hexa-dimensional full rainbow, but then aren’t able to understand the person they have in front of them. let’s start by ruining someone. there’s always time to say “I was wrong, I’d like to apologize. At the time I didn’t know. I vow to be a better person.”

    ReCursing,
    @ReCursing@kbin.social avatar

    Wrong person to post this in response to, dude

    rodolfo,

    why, i thought you’d agree

    ReCursing,
    @ReCursing@kbin.social avatar

    Your comment came across as attacking me, and also as a little bit crazed. That said I completely agree with your last sentence, being able to admit you are wrong is a very important skill and one many people could do with learning (I try, I don;t always succeed but I try)

    lemmesay,
    @lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    I agree with your point in spirit, but again, he didn’t say any such thing. I haven’t talked to him in person, so, I can only rely on internet to validate/refute those claims.

    he is the public face of free software because others have their own terminologies(e.g.: open source championed by bruce perens and eric raymond), with which the GNU project disagrees.

    natecox,
    @natecox@programming.dev avatar

    Here you go, someone has done me the service of clearly laying out the case against Stallman here so that I don’t need to l: drewdevault.com/…/2023-11-26-RMS-on-sex.html

    kadu,
    @kadu@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    lolcatnip,

    Which he did not do.

    TheGrandNagus,

    Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

    “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

    RMS on June 28th, 2003

    "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006

    "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    Mubelotix,
    @Mubelotix@jlai.lu avatar

    Honestly I cannot see any way one could interpret his words like that

    TheGrandNagus, (edited )

    Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

    “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

    RMS on June 28th, 2003

    "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006

    "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    TheBat,
    @TheBat@lemmy.world avatar

    Aaron Schwartz too

    web.archive.org/web/…/bits.are.notabug.com/

    I fight laws that restrict what bits I can put on my website.

    Unlike humans, computers see everything as bits (numbers). They can’t tell the difference between the random movement of a lava lamp and a copyrighted song. I believe that our technology should similarly make no distinction and that I have the right to transmit arbitrary bits.

    Here’s a list of laws that restrict this right, in order from least controvertial (i.e. most people agree this freedom shouldn’t be restricted) to most.

    …

    …

    …

    In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.

    This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won’t make the abuse go away. We don’t arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • linuxmemes@lemmy.world
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 4198400 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/http-kernel/Profiler/FileProfilerStorage.php on line 171

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 528384 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/monolog-bridge/Processor/DebugProcessor.php on line 81