Hacker News Reader

Comment by square_usual | Hacker News Reader

I'm no fan of Stallman, but I do find it worrying that some companies can unilaterally decide to sink the FSF if they don't like what it's doing. Of course, any foundation with companies on its board is at risk for that, but the fact that people who support Free Software, who ideally should shun corporate control of software, are cheering it on is disappointing, and is directly due to the kind of easy judgement people are rendering upon each other.

View on HN

> I'm no fan of Stallman, but I do find it worrying that some companies can unilaterally decide to sink the FSF if they don't like what it's doing.

Why? That's like, the entire basis of every organization, that supporters don't have to support it. If a company selling a product behaves in a way you don't want to support you stop buying, if a charity stops supporting a cause you stop supporting it, etc.

The real question is why every single major company in America is vigorously enforcing social norms that significant portions of the population, often a majority, don’t even agree with. This is very different than other eras.

It’s curious that you think these norms are not widely held.

I certainly hope that piling on to yellow journalism is not a widely held norm.

Is that the real question? I don't really think so, but even if it were it's one with numerous obvious answers.

Some obvious answers:

Companies are made of people, so decisions that are made are often a reflection of the values of those people, not necessarily those of some country or another.

That some group of companies tends to be American is unsurprising since (a) America owns tons of 'loud' industries like tech, so it will always seem this way, and (b) unsurprisingly the values of those who make up a company are tied to some extent by their background.

Companies may feel that their targeted consumer groups are likely sympathetic with some specific social norm.

Companies may feel that the issue is in fact bad for business ie: that someone is a bad fit for a role, is incompetent, etc.

etc

It's so obvious I wonder why one would even ask.

You missed my whole point, which is that the norms being viciously enforced aren’t even widely held.

Some of RMS’s behaviour seems excusable, but I think a majority of the population would support the social norm by which anybody who publicly states that possession of child pornography should not be illegal [1] is disqualified from leadership positions. As far as I know, RMS has not resiled from this position, although he has conceded that the actual sexual abuse of children should be per se illegal.

[1] https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix

A person who has a very strong opinion on computational freedom has an unpopular political opinion that directly follows from data privacy? gasp

If RMS were a leader at a church or youth club, yes we'd rightly worry about where that view was coming from. But your data being your business is squarely within the goals of the FSF, and RMS staking out unpopular opinions based on their implications for his philosophy is precisely why he has been so prescient.

I agree with the first sentence (Whence the e-giant custodians?)but not the second. Every major institution throughout history (kingdoms, churches, trade companies) has enforced top-down norms and expectations (i.e prescriptive norms). This was the case even mid- and late- 20th century America (i.e post-Sexual Revolution). There were respites from the prying eyes of society. Secret parties, meetups with friends, country clubs, and, for the technically-inclined, an early Internet/BBS/Usenet culture. But they were all generally exceptions to prescriptive norms of the general society (notwithstanding the existence of their own specially-tailored conventions) simply because few people were aware of these things at the time or cared enough to make a big stink out of them to a large enough audience.

Yes that’s my whole point. The norms being enforced now aren’t those of “general society” but of a tiny elite. That’s what’s different.

I think you missed my point. The rules of general society have always been written by a tiny elite regardless of said society's size or purpose. Just one reinforced by the masses either out of ignorance, zealous belief, or uncritical support. It's the latter portion of society that one generally has to worry about when finding an escape valve.

These days the big difference isn't so much about who's writing the rules so much as its about the tools available to these people/companies/interest groups and their respective motives/criteria for using them.

> This is very different than other eras.

Unsupported claim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com