Glad you liked Nicco and found it informative. I think his takes are usually grounded, and his software development background helps. I certainly like him a lot better than most tech influencers, if he even counts as one.
No need to apologize, I'll take a late reply over nothing any day. I'm not the fastest replier, myself. That said, I'm sorry, but isn't that the guy that calls everyone stupid, delusional, and entitled when people (often) point out his mistakes?
I honestly appreciate the comment from a Firefox dev, believing in good faith that it's truthful—such insights are often hidden, strewn over comments, old IRC messages, etc.—but I'm definitely wary of taking anything that creator says at face-value. Tech-influencers may have been a mistake.
...Well, I'll give it a shot anyway, since you say there's value in it. Thank you.
That second point sounds interesting, do you remember any names or other sources I could look into?
that means everyone who disagrees on that point is arguing in bad faith
It doesn't, that's not my point. Bad faith implies they're lying despite knowing better, which isn't what I described. I never claimed bad faith, I said they're factually wrong in this instance, and that their discourse is harmful regardless of their beliefs.
Just as not all anti-vaxers argue in bad faith, but are wrong nonetheless. Like many other groups who honestly and earnestly defend(ed) everything from racial segregation to genocide. I'm not saying these groups and the harm they cause are equivalent—this should be obvious, but I'm saying it anyway.
Everyone was wrong about something at one point.
When one being wrong hurts innocent people, something has to be done. I expect folks in aforementioned groups to stop being wrong about those things at some point. Otherwise, it's up to the rest of us to act to protect the victims, not the moral standing of the aggressors because they're sincere.
This attitude of "only one side follows facts and it just happens to be mine" is so amnesic, you never were always on the right side.
That's a gross misrepresentation of my position, which I hope is born of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the topic. I tried to clear up any misunderstandings. If you don't think they're wrong or causing harm, I'm willing to have a conversation about this to explain it, if you want.
The problem isn't opposition. It's spreading misinformation, framing critics as luddites, refusing to acknowledge their misunderstandings about the relevant technologies and how they impact others. There's no "two sides" to it when one of the sides thinks 2 + 2 is 5.
It sounds like you gave up and expect everyone else to do the same.
No need to apologize, I've been getting worse as of late.
Re: being from the US, it feels like maybe you think I am, or I implied you were. I'm not seeing the latter, so I'll use this comment to mention I'm not from there either.
This feels like kicking the can down the road just to trip on it later, but I respect your effort and dedication, so do what you think is best, I wish you luck.
For what it's worth, the rest of the report is mostly fine, and I'm inclined to believe I learned something about Drew. But I also felt that was not honest, and question if it had to be included at all. Looking around, it seems the author likes Stallman, and regardless of how they felt before, they probably disliked Drew when they found he was connected to the Stallman report.
So thanks for mentioning that weird vibe. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who paused at that section.
This isn't an absolute rule. Of course they don't (and shouldn't) ask for feedback before cutting off Nazi instances, but it's not always so clear.
.world defederated from fosstodon and I'm still unsure why.
Yeah, the more people say something, the less true it becomes. Good facts die inside an individual mind without ever being shared.