Discussion May 2019

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

48 participants
33 discussions

free software promotion and local status
by Paul Sutton 08 May '19

08 May '19

In response to the thead Fridays for Free Software ;) I am going to try and share a few thoughts from my own experiences. I tried to approach people such as digital unite in the UK, who are working to bridge the digital divide by developing digital skills. They work on a set curriculum on how to use digital kit, use the Internet, use e-mail, social media etc, and this is set by people above them and funded by government. The issue is that they teach proprietary software, but at the same time business is using this. There is little traction to move from that, and little incentive to move from that, despite the skills shortage for Linux admins for example. These courses are pushing people towards Microsoft, and Facebook (which I refuse to use Facebook on privacy and ethical grounds) There is however the learning machine who offer ingots (ITQ) using free and open source software, but unless the trainers are taught to use this The problem, here and on user groups, is people don't exactly need training in say Libreoffice so don't ask for it, new users wanting to learn may not ask or if they do they get told MS Office is standard, we don't offer Libreoffice courses. I am not sure what the solution is here. Paul -- Paul Sutton http://www.zleap.net https://www.linkedin.com/in/zleap/ gnupg : 7D6D B682 F351 8D08 1893 1E16 F086 5537 D066 302D

3 5

FSFE and censorship - not true?
by virgilva＠keemail.me 07 May '19

07 May '19

Greetings FSFE folks!Daniel Pocock writes FSFE is censoring people:https://danielpocock.com/what-is-the-difference-between-moderation-a… <https://danielpocock.com/what-is-the-difference-between-moderation-and-cens…> Please tell us this is not to be true? Virgil

13 17

Re: Request for Clarifications
by Diogo Constantino 07 May '19

07 May '19

Please stop immediatly! I've certainly not elected you, I'm not even a member of the FSFE or your abusive fellowship of data robbers, and I certainly haven't participated on any election. You have "sequestered" my personal data for the good of your personal agenda, and hosted it on systems of other parties. I see that as extremely big abuse of my personal rights. I don't care about anything else you have to say, because you haven't regret it or asked for pardon. Your abusive and entitled attitude, shows me that they were probably right in taking those measures. Now stop making us wasting any of our collective valuable time. On 04/05/19 12:50, Daniel Pocock wrote: > (fixed address) > > On 03/05/2019 23:30, Paul Schaub wrote: >> Hello list, >> >> as probably most of us I'm trying to get a clear picture of what >> happened and why. On my quest to find answers, and to grasp the >> situation as close to truth as possible, I have some questions to >> officials of the FSFE. >> >> For a start, are the allegations of "censorship" regarding the blog and >> newsletters written by Daniel Pocock true? I dislike the word >> censorship, as I can see valid reasons for moderation. Still, is it >> true, that Pococks work in the FSFE is being "moderated" and if so, >> based on what reasons? >> >> How much moderation is happening on at the FSFE lists? >> > > > An email from Matthias Kirschner on 12 September 2018 states: > > "Until further notice, your blog is removed from the FSFE's planet > aggregation, > ... (snip) ... > we will put you on moderation on our mailing lists, > ... (snip) ... > while you remain a member of the FSFE, the publication of our legal > demands would be considered further discrediting the FSFE and > damaging the bond of trust between the members, and as such, would be > considered in any current or future exclusion proceedings." > > In other words: > > - they censored the representative you elected (me) > > - they told me that I can't tell you I was threatened or censored, or > there would be more legal proceedings - a threat on top of a threat > > As your representative, it was my duty to tell you both good things and > bad things. If telling the truth is a CoC violation, I'm guilty as > hell. That was my duty. > > For example, if you are buying a house and you pay a surveyor to inspect > it, do you want the surveyor to tell you about the defects or do you > want him to tell you nice things so that he won't offend the person > selling the house? > > There is an attitude in some free software communities that we have to > hide defects, especially when it concerns money or governance. > > What is more, the communities promise transparency. FSFE has a > transparency page: > https://fsfe.org/about/transparency-commitment > and one of the pillars of the Debian Social Contract[1] is the claim "We > will not hide problems" > > yet when people speak about problems, they are subject to censorship, > blackmail, veiled threats, humiliations, defamation, lynchings and > secret punishments. > > Regards, > > Daniel > > > 1. https://www.debian.org/social_contract > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion(a)lists.fsfellowship.eu > https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion >

4 4

On Censorship
by Joe Awni 06 May '19

06 May '19

I want to call your attention to a serious ongoing organizational asymmetry between a group like the FSFE with their ties to big software (ie: Github whom RMS has spoken against), dedicated office, staff, and budget vs an unorganized set of independent Free Software developers who might be struggling to provide themselves comparable resources. Consider an individual like David who may refrain from Twitter, Facebook, and Github because they do not respect his freedoms, standing up to the Goliath Software Cabal who have no problems censoring people on platforms they control or have influence over. He would not stand a chance against them without our support; we probably would not even know his name. It’s very valiant and i applaud and pledge my support again. If this discussion has made anything clear it’s that extreme conflict of interest within the FSFE prevents them from acting in our best interest. Until the internal conflicts are resolved they can not be trusted to be independent of their tech industry donors’ interests. ===== On Censorship ===== There are three parties in any instance of censorship: The censor who prevents censored material from reaching people; the censored, whose communication is obstructed; and the uninformed who are ignorant of the censored content or even that censorship has taken place. Some forms of censorship could be naïevily misidentified as (accidental) omissions. But some more subtle and chilling techniques are unmistakable in their intent. For most (probably you, reader), censorship is ignorance because you would not have access to an alternative you don’t know exists. Generally, the broadest effect of censorship is on the uninformed who are prevented from learning of censored topics. But, ignorance is not the deepest most disastrous impact of censorship, the relationship between the censor and the censored is the most damaging and disastrous consequence for the Free Software movement because as Paul Bodie has pointed out people walk away from Free Software after dealing with this kind of skulduggery. To give a timely example of someone who did so, have a look at Michael Stapelberg who stepped down from Debian earlier this spring: https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2019-03-10-debian-winding-down/ He complains of a remarquable overlap in topics of discussion from one time to the next over the span of a decade. This is a form of censorship known online as side-scrolling. Where irrelevant topics are inserted and refactored ad-nauseam until exhausting participants’ willingness to contribute to a discussion they view a onerous and unintelligent. Another form of censorship; effectively burying the discussion in irrelevance. Most people are optimistic, when their messages does not reach the mailing list they scratch their heads, check their SMTP settings and simply chalk it up to a mistake; they dont think anything nefarious is going on. While the law of average states that for each person who speaks up about censorship there are ten more who simply drift away from the community not knowing if it was something wrong with their email client or the server. For the one and ten who does not simply drift away and wonder what happened to his messages, there are those being made to think that the removal or alteration of their content was somehow for-the-greater-good, that the author was off-base or overly emotional. This is not acceptable! Personally, I have experienced instances of de facto censorship in the form of not being allowed to participate in an election, having messages delayed until untimely, unauthorized edits, and removal of messages. *I think it is absolutely important we avoid censorship in any communication in any form. * In a world where parent companies sell their customers’ data to third-parties as part of surveillance-as-a-service agreements, beneficiary organizations are relied on to provide censorship-as-a-service to complete an ecosystem of ignorance and diversion for the end user. We do not need any censorship or moderation on this list. I demand the FSFE stop trying to frame the situation as if it was one discontented person with a personal gripe and *I demand they publish ALL of the censored messages.* For this reason and because i hold you in regard for our shared interest in computing, I urge all other Free Software fellows to regularly re-evaluate their communications platform choices from the perspective that they be as free from any form any form of censorship as possible. (Hint: It’s not always the sexy apps that respect their users AND apps that were OK at one point, might no longer be.) Give consideration to your commutation choices and you will be rewarded with the most informed discussion possible. The alternative, living in a world of ignorance and diversion might not be a problem for a short while. But, continued reliance on moderation to lessen the burden on our collective ability for critical thinking will corral our thoughts. Inevitably this will lead to off-loading of our logical capabilities to the censor. With time, this will morph into extremism. Thus, enforcing the status-quo will only benefit one specific community, the Donald Trump Republican Community, and help keep the world the same for a long time. These people, and I’m assuming you consider them as people, who have censored others with the goal to maintain their status as a flagship organization in Free Software are the ones who actually deserve to be silenced themselves. P.S. I sent this email to both mailing lists at the same time. It should interesting to see if/when it appears on each list.

6 5

external request to leave the Discussion mailing list
by willi uebelherr 06 May '19

06 May '19

Dear friends, the same i got in the fsf-de-maillist with the same IP adress 91.64.208.89 (Vodafone '91.64.0.0 - 91.64.255.255'). But in this time, i live in Asuncion in Paraguay and here in the hostal they have a Tigo Paraguay account. In the email header, you can see the IP space. I am shure it has to do with the fsfellowship.eu-maillist from Daniel Pocock. I don't know, who act on this criminal way. many greetings, willi Asuncion, Paraguay Am 5/5/2019 um 17:48 schrieb discussion-confirm+adf393441b8e1196aa9cc3ac5a91cae2e13d6b2d(a)lists.fsfe.org: > Mailing list removal confirmation notice for mailing list Discussion > > We have received a request from 91.64.208.89 for the removal of your > email address, "willi.uebelherr(a)riseup.net" from the > discussion(a)lists.fsfe.org mailing list. To confirm that you want to > be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this message, > keeping the Subject: header intact. Or visit this web page: > > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/confirm/discussion/adf393441b8e1196aa9cc3ac5… > > > Or include the following line -- and only the following line -- in a > message to discussion-request(a)lists.fsfe.org: > > confirm adf393441b8e1196aa9cc3ac5a91cae2e13d6b2d > > Note that simply sending a `reply' to this message should work from > most mail readers, since that usually leaves the Subject: line in the > right form (additional "Re:" text in the Subject: is okay). > > If you do not wish to be removed from this list, please simply > disregard this message. If you think you are being maliciously > removed from the list, or have any other questions, send them to > discussion-owner(a)lists.fsfe.org. >

3 4

moving on
by Ion Savin 06 May '19

06 May '19

All, Could we just let this subject go, move it off-list or create a dedicated list for it? Again it seems to take over the "discussion" list. If you look back one year in the list archive this took the vast majority of what was discussed here. -- Ion Savin

1 0

Unsubscription amusement
by Paul Boddie 06 May '19

06 May '19

Hello, I see that some people are still having fun with the Mailman interface trying to unsubscribe people from this list, specifically 91.64.208.89 or ip5b40d059.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de as they are also known. Perhaps some actual, reasoned discussion about the challenges raised by recent events related to the FSFE might be preferable to rather clumsy attempts to play with people's mailing list subscriptions. Paul

4 3

Request for Clarifications
by Paul Schaub 06 May '19

06 May '19

Hello list, as probably most of us I'm trying to get a clear picture of what happened and why. On my quest to find answers, and to grasp the situation as close to truth as possible, I have some questions to officials of the FSFE. For a start, are the allegations of "censorship" regarding the blog and newsletters written by Daniel Pocock true? I dislike the word censorship, as I can see valid reasons for moderation. Still, is it true, that Pococks work in the FSFE is being "moderated" and if so, based on what reasons? How much moderation is happening on at the FSFE lists? I want to be clear that I don't want to blame anyone, just understand the situation. Happy Hacking!

5 6

Fridays for Free Software ;)
by Bernhard E. Reiter 03 May '19

03 May '19

Hello Friends of Free Software, as you may have heard a number of children refuse going to school on each Friday to make people aware that the world has to act swiftly if we want to protect our stable world climate. Free Software can help to protect the climate and the environment, because it helps to run hardware longer. == Hardware production worst for the environment Looking at the life cycle of hardware, the production phase contributes most to the environmental ballast. A lot of greenhouse gas emmission [1]. And use of rare earth materials, which cannot be recycled. => using hardware longer is environmentally friendly, even if new hardware is more energy efficient == Free Software allows to run hardware longer Use of Free Software can extend the life of hardware significantly. At least one third more life time in the average. There are some old examples of studies in [2], subsection 4, but also throughout the whole text. We probably find more if we search. It makes sense and in many aspects. Just think about LineageOS-MicroG giving old Smartphones a security patched operating system again. => Use of Free Software helps the climate. == A series of stories about Free Software on Fridays? This is not just a discussion list, this is also our list to tell nice stories about Free Software, connecting dots and restate to each other in new and fun ways why we all are here. Maybe we can make it a tradition: Tell one interesting thing that others may not have thought of, or have forgotten about why Free Software should be used more often. Best, Bernhard [1] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/timely-replacement-of-a-notebo… Autors: Siddharth Prakash, Ran Liu, Karsten Schischke, Dr. Lutz Stobbe September 2012 [2] https://dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#tco Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! David A. Wheeler Revised as of July 18, 2015 -- FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute

2 1

[important] How to remove yourself from fsfellowship.eu
by Erik Albers 02 May '19

02 May '19

Hi all, many of you ended up on discussion(a)lists.fsfellowship.eu without your consent. The information given by Daniel Pocock of how to remove yourself from the list was misleading or not working. The solution to unsubscribe yourself is to send a mail to discussion-request(a)lists.fsfellowship.eu with the subject "unsubscribe": <mailto:discussion-request@lists.fsfellowship.eu?subject=unsubscribe> You will receive an email with a link to confirm your removal as well as the option to remove yourself with another email-command. For us the link seemed to not work but we cannot confirm as we cannot repeat it. The email command worked succesfully for us. Sorry for any inconvenience, Erik -- No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software Erik Albers | Programme Manager, Communication | FSFE OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion May 2019