As a formerly ardent software freedom lifestylist I hear this criticism and have embraced it myself. I don't encourage the "designers" I know in my life to use GIMP anymore. Much like social revolution can be tragically violent, in 2016 it sometimes falls to us to surrender our computing integrity for a shorter-term tactical gain. This isn't good, but it's not good to avoid either.
That said, I think this essay paints an overly narrow view of Stallmanism. Stallman would much prefer systematic change, even though he is a self-identifying liberal; you see this less in the blessed FSF essays and more on stallman.org and similar because he doesn't get so speculative to talk about policy in most of the exhaustively-edited technical specifications on the finer points of software freedom theory.
Stallman is I think overly pragmatic. He lives in a society where individualist liberal political action, voting with one's dollar, etc., is the only acceptable method of political change, so he only ever expresses change in these terms. This makes for a weak praxis, because liberalism always makes for a weak praxis. But this isn't Stallmanism; it's just the overpragmatism of rms. Marx thought that electoralism was a good idea, for example, but that doesn't mean communism is inherently electoralist.
I think the best thing to do is to explicitly approach software freedom from a collective liberation stance and be ready and willing to point out the contradictions between the totality and the underlying ideological motivations of software freedom. Stallman doesn't need to do this; I think he's contributed quite enough honestly, and that if you want a better praxis, you should provide it yourself, because it isn't hard.
I don't actually know who the second-in-command (if there is such a position, the FSF seems very flat) is. But the first-in-command is John Sullivan and has been for like, ten years? A long time at least.
I don't think anyone will ever replace rms. You can't necessarily teach vision like he has. Honestly, maybe nobody will replace rms because free software will be illegal in the surveillance dystopia of the future. Everything else in The Right to Read has born out. But, the management of the FSF has been out of his hands for a long time. He's just the theorist; a role that's utterly critical, but not business-critical. When rms dies, it'll be like Marx dying.
I have no idea what computing will look like in 30 years but I think the fundamental premise of the FSF is that software is an extension of thought, so the sanctity of your software is the sanctity of your mind and should be regarded as such. That is an easy thing to continue on.
The thing is, the world 30 years from now doesn't need RMS.
(I realize that sounds callous, but my long-term partner split from me today and I'm a little drunk, so spare me :p )
What the world in the short-term and 30 years from now needs is someone new to think about and develop philosophies around today's software freedom concerns.
What's that look like? I dunno, I'm not that thinker.
What RMS did was profound and important for that time in history. The last few years, everything he's written seems goofy and childish. What we need is an RMS for the modern era, i.e. a significant thinker who can speak to the next 20 years of people.
Sad to say, like most nonprofits, there's no succession plan.
Eben Moglen sounds like a formidable advocate. Maybe a bit old too, but right now, he is a synthesis monster. While Stallman may have vision, Moglen has crystal clarity of expression.
I don't pay much attention to Stallman for a while now, because I sense I feel I have got enough from his Free Software, Free Society essays —which I recommend to any who aren't familiar with Free Software.
Moglen however still manages to surprise me with new stuff —the last one being, it is now too late to build the [free] network we want. We can only fight the [centralised, spying] network we don't want, and we have less than 10 years.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T4bZ5R-MH8
> The last few years, everything he's written seems goofy and childish.
What people don't seem to realize (also in Torvalds discussions) is that people simply wrote like that on the Internet up to around 2005-2008.
These people also produced most of the software that the millenials are now churning around or write middleware for.
What I find disturbing is the trend that millenials spend more time learning how to write glibly, appear mature on the Internet and in general sell themselves instead of writing truly new software.
[None of this is directed at you, I just used your comment for context.]
There's really nothing wrong with making a concerted effort to be more polite or accepting on the internet or anywhere else for that matter. Framing wanting to have good self-presentation and wanting to be a great coder as mutually exclusive is clearly disingenuous.
> The last few years, everything he's written seems goofy and childish
This is you growing older and wiser, and his old rhetoric being outdated (someone like Eben Moglen, or even Edward Snowden is more up2date). You'll find the same to be true in other idealistic writings or speeches.
"""
David Eden Lane (November 2, 1938 – May 28, 2007) was an American white supremacist leader and convicted felon.[2][3][4] A member of The Order, he was convicted and sentenced to 190 years in prison for racketeering, conspiracy, and for violating the civil rights of Alan Berg, a Jewish radio talk show host, who was murdered on June 18, 1984. He died while incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana.[4][5]
Lane coined the best-known slogan of the U.S. white supremacist movement, the Fourteen Words. He has been described by the SPLC as "one of the most important ideologues of contemporary white supremacy."[2]
"""
That would be poor design. Are you saying that the Signal team would not be capable of implementing a more effective path? Other applications have followed this approach before; it's not rocket science.
If that was their intent, then yes, that would be an issue. The key is good UX; don't send the user there without explanation. A well-designed "read this!" screen is key, and even then you will lose some users. It's a trade-off.
Also, I did acknowledge that this approach will turn away "mass market" users, but again, I don't think that those users will ever be Signal's primary user base. Most people are going to use stock apps or whatever is most heavily marketed (read: whoever spends the most dollars on acquiring users). Signal frankly can't afford to buy its way into the mass market. It's a niche app, and it should focus on catering to that niche.
>All this stuff draws contempt from curmudgeonly skeptics (of which I used to be the worst kind), but from painful experience I've found these techniques to be far more effective than any of the more conventional approaches I'd tried previously.
Yes, throwing away your critical eye towards the world in favor of starry-eyed credulity can certainly kick the placebo effect into overdrive. If you're constantly questioning whether something is working, it will probably not feel like it's working, whereas if you wholeheartedly believe, you will likely carry that through into your perceptions. This of course has nothing to do with the actual efficacy, it's just that you're selectively perceiving so as to confirm your pre-existing notions; when the object of all of this effort is your own mental state this can be confused with the technique itself being effective. In reality, people like being successful, and feeling like you are winning at one thing makes you more likely to think you can win at other things. Rinse repeat. Confirmation bias is lovely when you can weaponize it like this. The sad thing is you have to kill the most valuable part of your human self in the process. RIP.
"Curmudgeonly skeptics" love to think about themselves as realists. Skeptic is not a realist, however - when you think about yourself as a skeptic, you already set the limit to what you can experience and how your mind and skills can change and evolve. "Mindset" by Carol Dweck comes to mind.
Most of what I would need to say in response to the allegation of "throwing away your critical eye towards the world in favor of starry-eyed credulity" can be read in this comment below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12873531.
The placebo effect is certainly relevant in this discussion, and unfortunately it partly comes down to definition. Some try to claim the placebo means there is no tangible improvement in physiology, just an imaginary feeling of wellbeing. If that's your definition, then I'm guarding against that with thorough lab testing of all accessible physiological indicators, as described below. If your definition of the placebo effect is that there is a real physiological improvement brought about by emotional processes, then I agree with you, and the techniques I've used are just tools for bringing about a more profound placebo effect, which is fine, as long as it leads to a physiological improvement, which seems to be happening for me.
> If you're constantly questioning whether something is working, it will probably not feel like it's working, whereas if you wholeheartedly believe, you will likely carry that through into your perceptions.
For me it's sometimes been the opposite; techniques that I hoped and deeply believed would be effective turned out to do little, and techniques that I had little expectation of effectiveness turned out to make a big difference. Not always though. There's not really much of a pattern. And there's no pattern to this that aligns with practices being "mainstream" or "alternative". I've had positive and negative experiences with treatments/practices from both sides.
But the core point – that employing effective techniques to change unhealthy subconscious beliefs can reduce unhealthy emotions (including anxiety/depression) in the short term and reduce stress-related illness in the long term – has rung true for me and many others. And it doesn't take much reading through scientific studies on the topic, or even just thinking about it from an evolutionary point of view, to realise that it's unsurprising and uncontroversial that this could be the case. The only question is, what techniques are effective. I've listed the ones that worked for me. Different ones work better for others.
> The sad thing is you have to kill the most valuable part of your human self in the process. RIP.
It'd be worth your while to contemplate what motivates you to say something so mean-spirited.
I would say Temporal is not far off in saying "commitment to the truth," but I would go further and say that the core of humanity, of being human, is striving towards bettering ourselves through the application of intelligence. Intelligence is the human superpower and when harnessed it can create incredible things.
Doing the reverse of empowering your intelligence, and empowering your confirmation bias (as comment parent), tribalism (as Donald Trump/neo-nationalists everywhere), or credulity (as meditationists/"everything is connected maaaaaan" types), is worse than suicide. You're using the power of your brain to enhance its flaws and create a perverted version of a human, progressing, but in the opposite direction; becoming stronger, but in a domain that should be avoided at all costs.
This is somewhat like the process of building a good military sniper by progressively dehumanizing them, stripping them of their empathy and agency in order to use them as an efficient killing machine. But worse, because you can think yourself out of that -- you can't think yourself out of a totally broken mind, and the more intelligent you are, the better you are at keeping yourself broken.
One could also say that many people who suffer with certain issues /only/ do so because they've already successfully lied to themselves, and believed these less healthy lies.
Sometimes there are no exits, the commitment you mention doesn't take you anywhere good, you find yourself at the edge of mental sanity. Out of experience I can say there are periods where commitment to truth is literally life-threateningly dangerous.
You're welcome to suggest measures I should undertake to be more effective at getting to the truth in these matters.
Here's what I'm doing so far:
- Reading a wide variety of scientific sources across the spectrum of thought on these matters: Dr Bruce Lipton - pioneering stem cell biologist, now author and speaker; Rudy Tanzi - Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School and researcher behind some of the biggest recent breakthroughs in Alzheimer's research; Lissa Rankin - mainstream physician and author; Bernardo Kastrup - PhD scientist, philosopher, author; Sir Roger Penrose - Physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science; Sam Harris - Neuroscientist/Atheist/Skeptic movement icon; Richard Dawkins - biologist & father of the modern Skeptic movement; Jerry Coyne of https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/;http://www.quackwatch.com/;https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/; Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. - Biologist and Author. Karl Popper - philosopher of science and leading contributor to The Scientific Method. Comparing points of view from all these sources with each other and with my own experiences and what I can establish from publicly available studies in science journals and papers published via NCBI.
- Conducting a variety of lab tests of physiological metrics over almost 10 years, including: blood pressure (was consistently high for a few months about 10 years ago, went low for an extended period around 5-6 years ago, and has been consistently optimal for the past 2 years); cholesterol (improving), blood sugar (normalising), iron & zinc (improving), hormones eg adrenaline, cortisol, thyroid (normalising), inflammation (reducing), white blood cell count (improving).
- Collaborating with acquaintances who have been afflicted with similar illnesses (chronic fatigue, auto-immune illness, depression, etc), particularly those who are strongly scientific/rational in their worldviews. Admittedly my own scientific background is merely limited to high-school chemistry/physics/advanced math, a career as a software developer (self-taught), several years working in the fields of agricultural science and secondary science education, and an upbringing by an electronics engineer father and a mainstream medical practitioner mother. But my most trusted fellow travellers in this journey are minimum Master's-degree qualified in science (one in biotech, one computer science), and are widely reputed as being among the best in their field.
But I sincerely want to be as effective as is humanly possible at avoiding delusion and finding truth; my qualify of life depends on it. Please be forthcoming with any suggestions.
By the way, your challenge is to refute anything I've said without succumbing to the "beg the question" fallacy. Ideally you'll avoid all the other fallacies too (particularly Ad Hominem), but "beg the question" is the trickiest and most important to avoid in this debate.
> You're welcome to suggest measures I should undertake to be more effective at getting to the truth in these matters.
I notice you don't mention double blinding any of these interventions. Have you tried that? How would you try that for something crypto-religious like meditation?
There's not necessarily a relationship, it's often just people blurting rumours at a reception, commentary from opposition activists and so on. What's their abuse here? That years ago, they had enough sympathy to a nation that Assange is on crusade against now?
'Blurted' (thinking this is how a diplomatic reception works is straining) utterances don't end up on Wikileaks, and the united states isn't different now, for better or worse, than it was any number of years ago. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. If you don't personally agree with Assange that's one thing, but I think it's irrational to think that accepting his goals, you should still be forgiving of collaborators.
