I'm confused, the incident is that he wrote a document detailing repeated bad behaviour from a well known community figure? And this is a bad thing?
And that second link is really grasping at straws lol
I'm confused, the incident is that he wrote a document detailing repeated bad behaviour from a well known community figure? And this is a bad thing?
And that second link is really grasping at straws lol
He apparently pretended to not have written it despite its DNS pointing to his servers, and Certificate Transparency logs and Internet Archive all attributing the page to his domain. Compare the top comment thread in the first link above to his reply there:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838124
I generally like Sourcehut and Drew's writing but I just learned about this and I find it disappointing.
Which part of the second link? Some of it is very accurately sourced, he 100% operates a loli bot which targetted subreddits banned by reddit for illegal content. Theres no walking around that. Near the end they also point out that Drew changes his TOS for SourceHut to align with banning projects he disagrees with, which makes GitHub look like paradise.
> the incident is that he wrote a document detailing repeated bad behaviour from a well known community figure? And this is a bad thing?
He collected all Stallman statements about Epstein and related subjects (this is perfectly ok) and then wrote his own summaries which completely misrepresent the things which were actually said. So what happened was that a lot of people just skimmed the summaries and concluded that Stallman molests children, or says that it's ok to do so etc etc.
If fact I have taken to link the Stallman report and add "don't read the summaries, read only the things that Stallman actually said". This only works if I believe the person is in good faith, of course. I would suggest the same to you.