I don't think there can be a satisfactory proposition of "accountability". We have an Oligarchic system which again, systematically undermines the rights of users. Software which is made primarily for short term profit, will undervalue privacy, because it does not sell. Things are centralized because with the current technology that's how they scale, and are easier to control, and convenient. And also because data about you is important, that's the real treasure.

De-centralization is what will give power back to users. Ofcourse I don't want every user configuring their own synchronization solution instead of using Dropbox, and Drive. But running your own server , with modular services like these (sync, backup, email etc), should be like installing apps on your phone.

> nobody would disagree.

People have disagreed in this very thread. And can you honestly say that finding out the author was being hypocritical didn't weaken his argument in your mind? It did in mine: this is a very human impulse and in this case it leads us wrong. Now instead of evaluating whether what the author said it's true, we're evaluating whether the author is trustworthy. This needs not to even be considered because the author's statement stands on its own, independent of who said it.

> The point was that there is no accountability in the article. It even says "they're sleeping" instead of "we're sleeping".

I get the point, but why make this point? It's not an ad hominem attack because the logical leap from "the author was a hypocrite" to "the author is wrong" was never explicitly made, but it's hard to imagine a reason why attacking the author is relevant if you don't make that logical leap. And many readers will make that logical leap, as evidenced by responses to my post. If the intent is only to attack the author, it's off topic; if the intent is to undermine the author's statement, it's an ad hominem; either way it's counterproductive to the kind of discussion I want to see on HN.

Security is the responsibility of people who implement software. That's important and it's worthwhile to stay on that topic.

> If it is up to them to fuel the change, it do make them wrong.

So you're saying if a murderer says murder is wrong, and it is up to them to fuel the change, then murder is right?

> A better comparison would be to murder someone and write an essay about how the world is a violent place.

So you're saying that in this case murder would be right?

I disagree with the statement. But let me make this clear, I think RMS is great, and plays a very important role in todays society. He has an exceptional devotion to his ideology, but seen from a normal person's eyes, he is an extremist. For this normal person,(and the masses in general) abstaining from propriety services is not the solution. You cannot expect everybody to just install Linux and start using FOSS alternatives (as things are now). The barrier to entry is too high.

The end result is that we are trapped in our own bubbles, preaching to only those who already agree with us. Ideological purity goes on to alienate people. The new generation of computer scientists, developers are not exposed to these ideas, because they are not as accessible. They are using facebook, slack and medium, and we refrain to use those. These are tradeoffs, and clearly, there is needs to be a balance.

RMS also has had many years to build up a notable reputation where he doesn't need to.

Which is not the point? On Medium you get things like Recommendation, better discoverability. Which would help it get to people who don't read HN.