Thursday, March 28, 2013

Why Advocacy of Linux Must Not Tolerate Censorship

by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When  the GNU/Linux system was created 30 years ago it was motivated by the belief that -- as much as we may wish to control others -- in order to guarantee everyone's individual freedom we must decentralise and mitigate/neutralise remote control. Isolation between users and developers was annulled. Every user was capable of doing what a developer could. This clever 'hacking' of unwanted relationships between users and developers, such as the exclusivity in access to code, was removed in the licence sense.

Linux thrived owing to the adoption of licensing requirements that assure each and every contributor will retain full control over the entire system, dependants included. It sure is a motivator for many who work for FOSS-centric companies. It's a recruitment tool, too.

If code is law, as Professor Lessig put it, then using code we can control behaviour too. If we are to honour the same principles that motivated the GNU/Linux system, then we must reject the notion of censorship, no matter the platform. Not every commit -- so to speak -- needs to be accepted upstream, but its existence should be allowed and its integrity honoured. Free software is about a diversity of practices, not about imposition from above or the direct and at times explicit coercion of one over another.


Over the years I have come across thin-skinned people that excuse their practice of censorship by calling those whose opinions they do not agree with "trolls", or some of those equally insulting terms like "shills". This labelling is being used suppress comments or writers -- an issue I am familiar with as a former writer for some online news sites. My experience there taught me the role played by editors to whom controversial but otherwise truthful statement are too 'hot' to publish. This is how ideas get silently killed, or spiked. It manufactures the habit of self censorship -- an unnecessary restraint which limits one's scope of thinking.

Speaking for myself, I never deleted comments or suppressed replies, even though many of them (thousands among tens of thousands) included insults and sometimes libel. We must learn to tolerate opposing views and even disruption. That is what freedom is about.

In order to stay true to the standards of Linux and GNU as successful, leading projects that respect and harbour all voices we must stay true to the same principles that made Free software thrive. Failing to do so would lead us down the path of many failed projects which -- unlike Linux -- no longer attract volunteer contributors (who at times, in due course, found way to get paid for it as well).

Advocacy which is hinged on amplifying oneself while silencing the rest is not advocacy, it is marketing. And marketing is almost antithetical to what science-driven programming strives to achieve. In science, bad ideas die based on their merit, or lack thereof. The messengers earn or lose credibility based on their words. Let bad commentary die based on readers' assessments. Don't suppress it at an editorial level as that would project weakness, not strength.



- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Enhanced by Zemanta

3 comments:

  1. This. This is not even a Linux post, but a post against being a fucking pussy on the internet (of all places).

    You should absolutely read Stephen Fry's passage on being 'offended':

    http://imgur.com/EX5v4



    (could only find it in picture form, sorry)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent comments - and I commend you (and Dietrich) for allowing comments on your sites you might not fully agree with.

    With that said, you often use the term "shill" on your own site: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://techrights.org+shill



    Curious how you justify this at least apparent inconsistency in your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When the GNU/Linux system was created 30 years ago ...

    GNU is broken, Roy. Linux, though still broken, was "created" twenty years ago. Get over it. The two are not equivalent or even conjoined.

    It was motivated by the belief that -- as much as we may wish to control others -- in order to guarantee everyone's individual freedom we must decentralise and mitigate/neutralise remote control.

    No, neither one was motivated by that belief. GNU was motivated by Stallman's desire to steal other peoples' work. Linux was motivated by Mr Torvald's desire to build his own OS.

    Don't talk crap.

    Isolation between users and developers was annulled. Every user was capable of doing what a developer could.

    Oh, really? Show me a user of Linux who is capable of implementing Dijkstra's algorithm. Your choice of language. Your choice of user.

    Linux thrived owing to the adoption of licensing requirements that assure each and every contributor will retain full control over the entire system, dependants included.

    No, Linux thrived because of a fortunate coincidence of trivial LAMP stacks and the ability to cannibalise its parent, Unix, which depended upon extremely expensive non-commodity hardware.

    It sure is a motivator for many who work for FOSS-centric companies.

    It's a recruitment tool, too.

    No it isn't, you idiot. The wage-slip is the same. Frankly, if you work for MS or for Apple or for Red Hat, you would be insane to consider the OS as a motivation.

    If code is law, as Professor Lessig put it ... [drivels on]

    Code is not law. As Dr Johnson put it by kicking a stone, I hereby refute your thesis. Anything else you have to say on that assumption is therefore invalid.

    Over the years I have come across thin-skinned people that excuse their practice of censorship by calling those whose opinions they do not agree with "trolls", or some of those equally insulting terms like "shills".

    A common currency in the Linux "community," Roy. I can do no better than to direct you to mrpogson.com here. Quote one for your side, please.

    This is how ideas get silently killed, or spiked. It manufactures the habit of self censorship -- an unnecessary restraint which limits one's scope of thinking.

    When did you ever have an idea worth "silently killing?" Fantasize, much?

    In order to stay true to the standards of Linux and GNU as successful, leading projects that respect and harbour all voices we must stay true to the same principles that made Free software thrive..

    Or you could just write software that people want to use. Is that too difficult for you? Oh, wait ... You've never once done that, have you?

    Advocacy which is hinged on amplifying oneself while silencing the rest is not advocacy, it is marketing.

    Which is precisely what you have been doing for the last seven or eight years, Schetowitz. What a pity even your own "side" thinks you are are a self-aggrandising ignorant pointless bigoted dipstick.

    ReplyDelete