Stuff Michael Meeks is doing

Up earlyish, train to Nurnberg. Really disappointed to see the situation with RMS:
- I've seen Richard at a number of conferences, and I'm personally not a fan of his liberal approach to intimacy. I might be inclined to warn women of the risk of being propositioned by him in advance (arguably his door-plate is a strong hint). However, I'm aware that attitudes to this topic ebb & flow in the culture.
- I can only believe that RMS' E-mail defence of Minsky is based on knowing him personally, his character and ethics, and preferring to believe he would not knowingly force himself on an unwilling minor. I would hope that my friends might defend my character posthumously.
- I fear there is a deeply worrying, 'lynch mob' mentality about this, where truth is de-emphasized in favour of outrage, in an attempt to right a wrong.
  - That is understandable, given the outrageous nature of the Epstein allegations, it sounds horrific from many perspectives.
  - indeed - it's pretty horrible to have to dissect this, the reports are deeply troubling, but worth engaging with.
  - I applaud those members of the police & judiciary bringing justice to bear, and regret that Epstein's death robbed many of the chance to see him answer his accusers & to open the box, see justice done & learn valuable lessons from the experience.
  - I rejoice to see justice done. Unfortunately rushing to judgement on RMS's comments seems unjust to me.
- From the perspective of wanting to try to tell the truth, I find it troubling to see people I otherwise respect linking to and promoting articles that they know mis-characterise what RMS said. I suspect that this is done in order to stir outage and drive just such a rush to judgment.
- My feeble attempts to understand the sorry facts of the matter follow. You can read the text shorn of the Verge's misleading commentary here
- I guess the core of the most distorted section is this from RMS:
  "We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him [Minsky] as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates."
  - The description "presented ... as" has a clear, but slightly unusual meaning - which in context can be explained as: "it looked like X (to Minsky) when it was really Y". How you present - is what you seem to be from the outside. That is perhaps most clear to English speakers.
  - So - apparently RMS' argument is that intention is important and absent perfect knowledge, there could be different perspectives on the same (reprehensible) act.
  - From my perspective - that such intimacy belongs exclusively to marriage - I'd want to avoid all these problems with a ceremony, vows before God, explicit consent from both parties, who know each other well & are best friends, ideally in front of a large number of approving and celebrating witnesses before consumation. Oh, and a giant party to celebrate the goodness of it all !
  - However - it is not a surprise to me that this is a minority view. I hear there are many 'apps' to facilitate transient, shallow and commitment free, superficial couplings of a duration of minutes. This sort of promiscuous interaction seems unfortunate and particularly open to the possibility of mis-interpretation in twisted circumstances.
- So then we come to the reporting:
  - Lets start with the misleading Vice article - linked by Matthew & Niall. The inflated headline is: "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'" - by Edward Ongweso Jr. The problem is that RMS did not even describe a single one of Epstein's victims as entirely willing. Indeed his next sentence says "Assuming she was being coerced". The nuance of multiple perspectives and ignorance of the situation ie. "presented as" is elided.
  - The misleading Daily Beast "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were 'Entirely Willing'" - Blake Montgommery seems rather similar but adds a (missing) defence of Epstein.
  - The misleading Tech Crunch: "Computer scientist Richard Stallman, who defended Jeffrey Epstein, resigns from MIT CSAIL and the Free Software Foundation" - Catherine Shu - picks up the previous accusation that now appears to bear no relation to the E-mail thread.
  - Interestingly, the initial polemical blog - "Remove Richard Stallman" - Selam G. - is more accurate and helpfully contexualized than much of the rest of the media. An encouraging take on direct reporting. Even the text that sounds like the lynch mob's charter: "he didn't even give the typical, whiney, he's accused but not convicted defense." is moderated by the fact that being dead, Minsky can never be tried in a fair process - which is admittedly deeply unsatisfying.
  - So as a preliminary conclusion - accusation inflation transparently exists, and is a real concern. I believe this was at the core of RMS' initial point in regard to Minsky.
  - In another forum Slashdot reports: "Richard Stallman Challenges 'Misleading' Coverage of His Comments on Marvin Minsky" - EditorDavid.
    RMS: The coverage totally mischaracterised my statements. Headlines say that I defended Epstein. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a "serial rapist", and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him -- and other inaccurate claims -- and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said.
- Some personal conclusions
  - Whether you agree with his principles and ethics or not, RMS is a principled old man - who seems to have been forced to step down to avoid damage to the institutions he loved: MIT & FSF. Please respect his work, and his amazing achievement and legacy.
  - Where I agree with mjg59 is that all our (human) heros are flawed, and wouldn't it be nice not to have figureheads. Where I disagree is with the reality of PR, and (self-)promotion: such figures arise from re-inforcement effects anyway, fame breeds fame, as any D-list celebrity will tell you.
  - Beware: the mob is a fickle friend - I fear adding my small voice in support of RMS. Does doing so make me a rape-apologist-apologist in the inflated lexicon of our time.
  - I had hoped that when the similar stoning of Brendan Eich occurred - that it was just blameless, conservative Christians that would be aggressively excluded from the FLOSS community (cheered on by a similar set). Now it seems that bumbling hippies are also unwelcome; who is next ?
  - It is vital that misbehavior and abuse is caught and corrected, and that victims are willing to speak out. However, it is also important that "Work hard and you will do well" continues to be a foundation of what we do. Aggressive feminism should not be a necessary pre-requisite for success in our community. We do owe a duty to those who have put so much in, to give the benefit of the doubt, and listen carefully to what they are actually saying even if we disagree.
  - It seems an unfortunate thing for some to be criticizing RMS for making the FSF look bad, while simultaneously spreading the very unbalanced reports that exacerbate the problem they complain of. That is not a plea for secrecy - but for fair reporting.
  - Finally we need a way to retard lynch mobs. Where is the noble sheriff who stands in front of the slavering pack with a shotgun and risks his life to make sure that due process is followed ? What does due process even look like ? What can organizations do to bring balance and ensure all perspective are heard ? cooling off periods before accepting a resignation ? polling their communities ? who can say ?
- Perhaps my thoughts make you angry; perhaps you feel that defending an old man, standing up for his dead colleague is insensitive to the many victims of Epstein. Perhaps the larger problems you see are so bad, you just want to see blood regardless of whose it is; that is understandable. However, just possibly it is worth reflecting as to whether you are transferring your righteous anger and desire for justice in the Epstein case, to attack someone else for something very different.
- Finally, this blog is a hostage to fortune; it is possible (but unlikely) that RMS is not a harmless sort but a scheming criminal mastermind. Still, one can only work with the evidence as it is presented at the time.
- Update: 2019-09-18 (late) A postscript: Thomas Bushnell's reflections seem aposite; and somewhat sensitive; also did an s/outcome/situation/ on my disappointment at the top to be more accurate.
- Update: 2019-09-19 Thorsten posted his take here; I too have to agree that RMS " ... held views incompatible with broad societal norms & ethics”, as well as lots of views I dislike. It should also be clear that neither Thorsten nor I speak for TDF on this topic.
- Update: 2019-09-23 - Philip Chimento has posted his perhaps different take with some interesting comments. I think he does an appropriate job of engaging with the ideas. From the perspective of my serious concerns about process, (rather than outcome per-se) - I would love a mechanism to be certain that the fall-back other bad behavior used to post-justify change is also beyond reproach and not open to the accusation of intentional propagation of inflated and de-contextualized mis-representation. Since investigating that simply doesn't scale, I'd love to have some impartial, independent group with a balanced composition, that can actually talk just once to individuals involved & handle this sensitively & sensibly to free us all from the problem of building our views on the shaky foundation of internet hearsay.
- Update: 2019-09-26 Some people mailed me to suggest that the true problem is one of protecting and nurturing talented neuro-divergents, others pointed out that there is no formal, professional diagnosis of that, making this all speculation and hearsay. Having spent some time with Richard in the past, I know my view but the (non-ranting) bits of this story might help people make up their mind, or get more background in this Psychology Today's interview.
- Update: 2019-10-02 an interesting perspective from a die-hard feminist: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him.
- Update: 2019-10-10 Interested to see Lubomir calling out Neil's blog, and leaving comments for (healthy) open discussion. Also interested to read Andy Wingo's thoughtful take on RMS' leadership failings.
- Update: 2019-10-18 Interesting to read Bradley's thoughtful resignation post, and to have some informative talks at the mentor summit on the topic. I' not completely convinced that leaders have to campaign only on one narrow issue; I'd hope that those who disagree with me would have the space and support to speak out about whatever social injustices they see inside and outside the sphere of software. It's certainly possible to be right on one topic, and wrong on others.

My content in this blog and associated images / data under images/ and data/ directories are (usually) created by me and (unless obviously labelled otherwise) are licensed under the public domain, and/or if that doesn't float your boat a CC0 license. I encourage linking back (of course) to help people decide for themselves, in context, in the battle for ideas, and I love fixes / improvements / corrections by private mail.

In case it's not painfully obvious: the reflections reflected here are my own; mine, all mine ! and don't reflect the views of Collabora, SUSE, Novell, The Document Foundation, Spaghetti Hurlers (International), or anyone else. It's also important to realise that I'm not in on the Swedish Conspiracy. Occasionally people ask for formal photos for conferences or fun.

Stuff Michael Meeks is doing

2019-09-17 Tuesday.