stravanasu

  • 128 Posts
  • 548 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2023

help-circle

  • I don’t see any difference with a law saying that you must have a camera installed in your house to potentially check what you do (or what your child does). It’s my house, I decide whether I want a camera installed.

    If someone tells me they’re going to put a camera but it’s innocuous because it’s off, or because I can decide whether to turn it on, or because I can point it in any direction I like (toward the wall), well they completely miss the point: it’s my house, if I don’t want a camera in there, then no camera goes in there. That’s my basic right as a human being, and any individual or entity or government that tries to force something like this, automatically loses its legitimacy. Its “laws” are immoral and therefore void. I don’t care being then branded as “anarchist” or as “criminal”. Welcome are all “criminals” from the past that fought and broke unjust laws in order to fight for human rights. I’m not a Russian, bowing my head and complying. Better dead. My grandchildren should not grow up in such conditions.

    Likewise, my personal laptop is mine and I decide what does go and what doesn’t go in it.


  • Personally I do not want to comply with the law. It’s a law that violates my basic rights as a human being, and any tools that favours it or try to comply with it become tools that commit the same violations. My laptop is mine, I decide what goes in it, and nobody has any right to force any software in it, no more than they have any right to put a camera in my house to check what I do. When “laws” violate human rights, what counts is not what’s the “legal” thing to do, but what’s the moral thing to do.

    Today we would be in a Russia-like state if people had not actively resisted, broken, and refused to comply with unjust laws.










  • In principle I agree with you, pacific discussion and democracy should be the way to go. But it seems that “discussion” doesn’t lead anywhere these times. Politicians do whatever they like (or what lobbies tell them to do), without checking if the majority of the population really agree with some decisions. A developer does whatever he likes, without bothering about the more or less pacific feedback he gets on github. Nobody really seems to want to have a discussion. Well guess then what the “mob” does at some point: they don’t care about discussions anymore either, and they do as they please too.

    I fear that riots will start on a larger scale. Even if the context today is different, the situation reminds me somewhat of what happened with the 1981 riots in Toxteth, in Brixton, and other previous riots. Unjust or misused laws; deafness of authorities about discontent; innocent and not-so-innocent people getting hurt.




  • He got a huge amount of criticisms and negative comments from the community while he was working on this on GitHub; look at the comment thread of his implementation on GitHub. Essentially the community was telling him “we don’t want this”. And who are you working for in a FOSS project, if not for the community? Yet he disregarded the comments and went on.

    On top of this, he appeared out of the blue with this implementation. He had not made any pull requests to this git before now. Nobody had assigned this task to him.

    So the situation is not that this is some employee who was asked to implement something, and did it without knowing what the feedback would have been.


    1. He didn’t draw any straw. Nobody asked him to work on such an implementation (or maybe Meta did?).
    2. In fact, he appeared out of the blue to do this implementation. This was his very first pull request on the Systemd git.
    3. From the very start he received a huge amount of critical comments from the community on GitHub, while he was working on this. He neglected their criticism and plowed on.

    So he already had a warning that the majority of the community didn’t agree on what he was doing. Nobody asked him to. He chose to continue – he could have imagined the consequences.

    And the whole context on why and why now he did this is fishy.