image transcription:
big collage of people captioned, “the only people I wouldn’t have minded being billionaires”
names(and a bit of info, which is not included in the collage) of people in collage(from top left, row-wise):
- Alexandra Elbakyan, creator of Sci-Hub. perhaps the single-most important person in the scientific community regarding access to research papers.
- Linus Torvalds, creator of linux kernel and git, courtesy of which we have GNU/Linux.
- David Revoy, french artist famous for his pepper&carrot, a libre webcomic. inspiration for artists who are into free software movement
- Richard Stallman, arch-hacker who started it all. founded the GNU project, free software movement, Emacs, GCC, GPL, concept of copyleft, among many other things. champions for free software to this day(is undergoing treatment for cancer at the moment).
- Jean-Baptiste Kempf, president of VLC media player for 2 decades now
- Ian Murdock, founder of Debian GNU/Linux and Debian manifesto. died too soon.
- Alexis Kauffmann, creator of framasoft, a French nonprofit organisation that champions free software. known for providing alternatives to centralised services, notable one being framapad and peertube.
- Aaron Swartz, a brilliant programmer who created RSS, markdown, creative commons, and is known for his involvement in creation of reddit. he also died too soon.
- Bram Moolenaar, creator of vim, a charityware.
on the bottom right is the text reading, “plus the thousands of free software enthusiasts working tirelessly.”
no one should be billionaires.
None of them. I don’t care who they are, nobody should be a billionaire.
I think they aren’t billionaires precisely because they worked for the good of the internet/knowledge.
If they indeed became billionaires that would imply that how they conduct themselves had completely been altered along with their core beliefs.
You literally can’t be a billionaire without exploiting people. If you’re not sharing profits equitably, you’re exploiting your work force; if you ARE sharing profits, then there’s no way you’ll become a billionaire.
I heard of a shorter way of saying that: There is no ethical billion dollars.
Nope, there should not be any! Fuck capitalism!
right, Swartz totally cared about no one else…
go suck on Musk’s toes or something
You’ve completely changed my mind
You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire.
You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire.
Jeffrey Epstein supporter and pedophile Richard Stallman would qualify then?
Hoooo boy people here get angry when you remind them of Stallman being outspokenly pro-paedophilia.
All libertarians start and end at the same place.
At least Stallman championed other liberties, too.
Probably the same people who claim that Threads is going to be toxic for the fediverse…
If he’s willing to trample all over people, exploit them, and have them die for his sake, then absolutely.
Billionaires don’t care about people. They don’t view others as human. To them workers are robots, a statistical means to an end. Who cares if someone dies in some factory/warehouse somewhere? There’ll be another to replace them before the end of the day.
A billionaire gladly takes the effort of others and claims it as their own. They go out of their way to do it.
That’s not to say that every evil person acting like this will automatically become a billionaire, but you need to be OK with doing these things in order to get there. A billion USD is such an insane sum you cannot legitimately accumulate that without hurting people in the process. Like there’s no logical way of actually earning that amount of money. That’s money you take.
Billionaires don’t care about people. They don’t view others as human.
Whereas peophiles and forces sex labor apologists are super empathetic.
Guillotine for the lot, I say.
Reminds me of this tweet from Merman_Melville: “Being a billionaire must be insane. You can buy new teeth, new skin. All your chairs cost 20,000 dollars and weigh 2,000 pounds. Your life is just a series of your own preferences. In terms of cognitive impairment it’s probably like being kicked in the head by a horse every day” The experience itself is probably harmful and changes the person.
Studies have shown that people change at a certain amount of money, like they cross a line in the sand. When you can buy anything everything just becomes yours by default in your mind. And anyone who can’t do that are basically sheep dogs - useful but not worth your time. These studies were done in the twenty-tens and the number then was between 20 and 30 million for most people. Imagine your view on the world if you have 100 times that amount.
Whew! Dodged that bullet.
Imagine 5 thousand times that amount, like bezos or musk
None of these people could ever be billionaires. Only a sociopathic, narcissistic mind could ever do what it takes to hoard a billion dollars. Capitalism rewards having a lack of empathy for other people.
If they were billionaires, they likely wouldn’t be the people they are today.
I meant billionaires for their actions and creations, and not by birth like most techbros are.
That seems worse because it means they went out of the way to get so rich, rather than just having it handed to them.
I was thinking more along the lines of “if they had that much money, their projects could’ve received more impact.”
like if free software would become mainstream.though now I realise that’s an idealistic view and with money, people will become corrupt.
If they received a lot of money from their work and they used it to increase the impact of their projects, they wouldn’t be billionaires. The money would have been spent on the projects. If Linus headed a non-profit that received 10B a year revenue and spent most of it, leaving Linus with 0.5M-1M yearly salary, he wouldn’t be a billionaire and the billions spent on the Linux project would have had a significant impact. If on the other hand he pocketed 1B a year, there would be 1B less for the Linux project. And Linus would have been/become a different person.
then the lore of Linyos Torvoltos would’ve been true :p
I’d strongly disagree there too. Y’know basically the entire internet runs on Linux right? Our global communication system containing the sum of all human knowledge is like 99% Linux servers. And the reason a whole bunch of companies sponsor the hell out of Linux now is because it’s just that good and just that important on a global scale.
deleted by creator
IMO RMS already has the attitude of a billionaire. He’s a thoroughly weird man who says stuff he really shouldn’t then stands by it. He’s right about a lot of things when it comes to software, licensing, and open source in general but outside of that track he’s more than a little loopy.
I think it might be because he’s had to fight society so long for things he knew he was right about that now he doesn’t know how to have people tell him “no Richard, that’s ducked up”.
Anyhow, I don’t think him being a billionaire would be a good idea, him having enough funds to branch off into doing wherever strikes his fancy could be very bad.
And Linus, I love Linus but look at how he’s grown as a person and listened and changed how he interacts with other kernel developers. Would he still have been as receptive if he was a billionaire? Something tells me no.
I understand your point, but those weren’t the words he said. though I don’t think that’s going to make a difference.
I like RMS for what he did(and is doing) for the free software community. I can also talk about some uncanny things about Gandhi, but that doesn’t make his contribution to the independence movement and his views on nonviolence any less relevant.
to me, a person should be seen in his entirety. because only fictional characters are without flaws.
People should indeed be seen in their entirety, the failure of this is why so many people get upset about Stallman.
The guy is routinely portrayed as a bastion of righteous good will, championing the little guy against the evil corporations. The hero worship is real.
Some of us see Stallman as a misogynistic asshole who routinely belittles people on mailing lists when they don’t agree with him and publicly defends people who sexually abuse children.
For some of us, it feels like we need to go out of our way to point this out because we don’t want a guy like that as the public face of something we care about.
what did
ithe say about women that makes him a misogynist?Edit ok found this
https://www.arp242.net/rms.html
a pretty much reasonable, reasoned and merciless account on the figure of rms. I very largely agree with it - spoiler he isn’t a misogynist, just a super massive weirdo
just a super massive weirdo
I once heard him described as “The smartest man to ever throw a tantrum like a 4 year old”
this thread is terrible… people reporting "I heard of"s as proofs. eh once I read, eeeh once someone told… once sjws bite, there’s no chance they let go. and the most important thing is that 99.999999% of the people bad mouthing rms have at best fifth hand reports about him.
to all the superior etichs white knights: I’m not defending rms.
I’m very worried about the lynching, with proof based on I once read, i heard of, and also straight out of jealousy and envy.
rms, like suggested in the article I posted, could very well be a neuro divergent person. I wonder how many of all of these rabid dogs biting at him preach themselves as super supportive, super inclusive, 360° hexa-dimensional full rainbow, but then aren’t able to understand the person they have in front of them. let’s start by ruining someone. there’s always time to say “I was wrong, I’d like to apologize. At the time I didn’t know. I vow to be a better person.”
Wrong person to post this in response to, dude
why, i thought you’d agree
I agree with your point in spirit, but again, he didn’t say any such thing. I haven’t talked to him in person, so, I can only rely on internet to validate/refute those claims.
he is the public face of free software because others have their own terminologies(e.g.: open source championed by bruce perens and eric raymond), with which the GNU project disagrees.
Here you go, someone has done me the service of clearly laying out the case against Stallman here so that I don’t need to l: https://drewdevault.com/2023/11/25/2023-11-26-RMS-on-sex.html
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Which he did not do.
Richard Stallman on paedophilia:
“The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”
RMS on June 28th, 2003
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "
RMS on June 5th, 2006
"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013
Aaron Schwartz too
https://web.archive.org/web/20031229025933/http:/bits.are.notabug.com/
I fight laws that restrict what bits I can put on my website.
Unlike humans, computers see everything as bits (numbers). They can’t tell the difference between the random movement of a lava lamp and a copyrighted song. I believe that our technology should similarly make no distinction and that I have the right to transmit arbitrary bits.
Here’s a list of laws that restrict this right, in order from least controvertial (i.e. most people agree this freedom shouldn’t be restricted) to most.
…
…
…
In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.
This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won’t make the abuse go away. We don’t arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.
wha?
you can read everything in great detail and with citations here if you have the bandwidth.
but I’m not sure if the commenter is mixing two unrelated accusations towards him.
stallman is known for his fixation on certain choice of words, which is the reason most people get him wrong. that’s why I shared the link to read his exact words and make up your mind by yourself.
the man sure doesn’t know how the read the room… and when to shut up.
He did not. Go find his exact words if you don’t believe me.
Removed by mod
Why don’t you link his exact words, then?
Since the other person hasn’t (surprise), here’s Richard Stallman on paedophilia:
“The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”
RMS on June 28th, 2003
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "
RMS on June 5th, 2006
"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013
Yeah I’m not surprised either haha
Thanks for the quotes, what an appalling man smh
Yeah. He had/has some great ideas when it comes to free software, but it doesn’t mean he isn’t a POS in other parts of his life.
I’m tired of the Linux world literally worshipping him. It’s weird. Hilariously it’s no doubt the same people who would cringe at the cultish following of Steve Jobs. Another person with some good ideas but was an awful person.
Image of me is missing but I still agree.
on the bottom right is the text reading, “plus the thousands of free software enthusiasts working tirelessly.”
We don’t work tirelessly. We get tired all the time, but keep at it as well as we can.
No one should have that much power.
I wouldn’t have trusted Fred Rogers with a billion dollars, and he’s practically the only famous stranger I could have seen trusting with my newborn alone.
It’s a society warping level of wealth. No single, unelected, unaccountable person should possess that much uniltateral power.
The global
allowanceencouragement of such an exploitative, reckless goal is why we are in our various bleak situations.The only exception I can think of is Dolly Parton. I read a report that suggested she’d be among the world’s wealthiest if she weren’t consistently giving away 90%+ of her income.
The problem is that anyone with that much wealth has already proven their selfishness by not giving away most of it. It’s the classic issue of “Anyone who can be elected should never be elected.”
Recently saw a post somewhere proposing a new style of Government, where we just give the money to Dolly Parton and just kinda let her do her thing with it.
Wouldn’t be the worst option out there, but I wouldn’t wish that on the woman.
that’s a good point. if i get it right, you mean that since wealth is a resource, it should always be in the hands of those who are accountable(like the government)?
I mean when wealth reaches levels beyond material comfort, needs, and wants, when it becomes easy to warp society. Billionaire’s lifestyles doesn’t change AT ALL between 1 billion and 2, its about expanding power. That is what capital becomes at those levels.
Politicians swoon over you for “donations” (bribes), you begin to see regulations over the industry you exploit your profit from as amendable through lobbyists you can hire to represent your interests over society. Meanwhile that billionaire’s factory workers, customers concerned with product safety, our shared commons, and our communal environment have no advocates with such massive influence to counter them, when the needs of the many shouldn’t just balance the needs of the interests of the wealthy few at the top, they should far outweigh them. As it is, its the other way around. The billionaires have the resources to take care of themselves and protect themselves, most of society does not.
No one should have enough wealth to have more influence over society than your single vote allows. If you want more power, that should come by selling your ideas to society that votes on them by putting you into a political office, with ALL of the rules and accountability that comes with that office.
The White House and Senate often invites the billionaires of industries to be the authority on how those industries should be regulated, and it’s perverse. The Foxes advising on hen house security.
thanks for explaining
No one should have enough wealth to have more influence over society than your single vote allows.
That’s an implausible metric. As long as there is not communistic equality, there will always be discrepancies in influence.
Which is why the absurdity of letting someone accumulate a billion dollar plus discrepancy is so glaring.
There won’t be because the game is already rigged, over, captured, and hoplesss, but there needs to be a maximum net worth at which point the winners of the economy’s excess wealth is siphoned away to benefit the society that provided the conditions for that success in the first place. YOU WON! Now go enjoy having enough wealth to live 100 embarrassingly gluttonous lifetimes while we use the excess millions and billions to build Schools you can send your kids to and roads you can drive your collection of multimillion dollar supercars on. I know, I know, that would be eviiil and crueeel. A real victimization amirite? /s
Why is it a tragedy if the maximum wealth one person can hold is half a billion? Or better 100 million? They won’t want to keep “excelling” and working? Awesome, makes room for people without that kind of money to succeed.
There’s a damn good reason in game design why you NEED to have drains and hard limits and maximums in any multiplayer economy. The game would fucking break or leave players miserable. But not here irl where there are actual stakes. Nope.
No one should have that much power.
How do you reconcile that with government leaders having that much power?
With elections that monied interests can no longer purchase and disproportionately propagandize with their essentially limitless power/capital.
They have politicians work against the people, then buy enough ad propaganda to convince people that was a good decision in their interests without that, politicians would rise and fall moreso on what they do in office.
We are the weird ones in the developed world for allowing unlimited private money to pollute our politics, elections, and even buy sitting politicians though legalized political bribery superpacs. It got this way because of the influence of the wealth class being allowed in the first place using that in to expand its own power and ability to bribe, culminating in Citizens United.
I think our eventual collapse will be tied directly to that SCOTUS decision.
deleted by creator
Because in countries with functioning democracies, political power is narrowly scoped (your electors give you a mandate to do certain things, and if you act contrary to those interests you loose your power) and fleeting (you only have power as long as your electors continue to entrust that power to you, and can remove that power if they decide you are no longer fit to wield it).
Money, by contrast, is permanent (capital breeds capital) and unaccountable (you can choose to use the power your wealth grants without any regard for what others think - even if people disapprove, they can’t stop you spending it)
"The government has a defect: it’s potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they’re pure tyrannies.”
— Noam Chomsky
(Not exactly the same, but very similar.)
Can we throw Steve Irwin in here. I bet that dude could have saved the Great Barrier Reef and a whole lot of wildlife if he had more means.
This is exactly why those people never become billionaires. You can’t make billions without screwing over people and the environment.
I have a standing theory that once a person is no longer concerned about their welfare or the welfare of their descendants, they go crazy.
Like, once you reach a point where survival is no longer a problem, that part of your brain goes nuts. It’s not a flawless theory, since philanthropy is a thing and people like Dean Kamen exist, but it’s a thing that seems to happen an awful lot.
I think it’s more that billionaires have very few people to surround themselves with except for sycophants and other billionaires.
Nobody says no to them, everything they’ve ever done was the right thing according to everyone around them, so why should the next thing they do or say be wrong?
Covid really really accelerated the craziness among them.
I’ve worked for several very, very rich men. The pattern I notice is that they always get surrounded by people who make sure that they never, ever hear “no”.
Imagine living in a world where every inane thing that comes out of your mouth, somebody immediately makes it their mission to try and make it happen. You no longer get any kind of useful feedback from the world and your opportunities to learn from feedback are greatly reduced.
I agree, I think in the end, it does make them crazy.
Survival no longer is a problem to literally everyone in north america. yeah people die, but, when was the last time you have heard of anyone who is not anorexic starving to death? People still talk like survival is an issue, but that’s because they actually mean not being comfortable.
Me. I use arch btw.
I fucking love arch.