Technology

58970 readers

5096 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1058

Linus Torvalds affirms expulsion of Russian maintainers (www.theregister.com)

submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

563 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I actually just emailed RMS about this and I'm genuinely curious what he says. If anyone else is interested, I'll ask if he's fine with me sharing some of the response.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just what we need. The opinions of someone who thinks having sex with children is a good thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

He never said that. I agree he was more skeptical than I'd like, but he eventually was informed and apologized.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You are mistaken:

"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.

RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

None of those say it is good. I disagree with him, he also disagrees with him and apologized for saying that. But that is very different from saying its good. I don't think alcohol is good, I also don't think it should be illegal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

None of those say it is good

Huh?

He said it's a shame that paedophilia is outlawed and that it was narrow-mindedness that made it so.

He said it's untrue that having sex with children harms them.

And yeah, he later apologised and said he doesn't believe it anymore... 2 days after his job became on the line.

Ask yourself this:

A man has been publicly championing raping children for decades. Publicly. He firmly believes he should have the right to fuck children.

News media hears about this, and now his job seems untenable.

All of a sudden, the man claimed changed his mind, that he's completely reversed his opinion (that he held for decades and publicly shouted to the world). In just 2 days, he's gone from thinking it's a tragedy that you can't fuck children, to thinking fucking a child is bad.

Do you believe him? Or do you think he's just saying anything he can to try to keep his job?

I don't think alcohol is good, I also don't think it should be illegal.

There's a big difference between "it's unfortunate that adults can't fuck children, it really should be legalised. People against fucking toddlers are just bigots" and "well I don't like alcohol, but I think it should be legal"

How you just equated raping a child and drinking a glass of wine is beyond me. Wow.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Oh yes, an update would be really interesting! (Even though I agree with @[email protected] in all points.)

My opinion on this whole topic: I don't like the decision, a Free Software project should only prevent people from contributing in very rare occasions (e.g. having actively tried to sabotage the project). I don't think this was the case, because I presume that the Linux Foundation was forced by the U.S. government to kick the maintainers out. The should've also communicated more clearly to prevent the confusion. (Russian trolls will cry out no matter how they phrased that.)

Edit: Depending on their power as a maintainer, they might be hired by intelligence and forced to just wave a backdoor through. With the Russian government waging a hybrid war against the U.S. and Europe, this poses a real problem.

Another Edit: @[email protected] mentioned that apart from Russia, the U.S., Israel and China also have a very well funded intelligence service. So banning Russian maintainers because of a potential backdoor when there are American maintainers (which could be agents) as well? I don't think it makes sense, but unfortunately the Linux Foundation won't be able to resist the "complience requirements".