The attitude of LN

Hmm, this is hard.

The only thing I can think of doing at this moment is to look at me, and my history here. I came from LFdO (during its good days), and commented on some of the things I understood, read a few of the others posts and comments (which I didn't usderstand as well). I wasn't that regular, I would have visited the site once or twice a week, but as time passed, and I read more I also learnt more. When I started I had no idea about most things, no idea of what GNU or the FSF were etc. But by reading I've managed to come to understand Free Software etc. better and have been much more active here in the last 6 months - this activity has come with understanding.

Most computer users don't understand the concept of Freedom. This is why I think LN is good - it promotes Freedom, and is the only fora I know which does this. But do we come over as extremists?

I remember thinking something along the lines of "Wow these guys are deep" when I first came here - the discussion was on deep philosophical things which I wasn't used to reading online. I wouldn't say that you were extremist either though; you defended your viewpoints, and there were often disagreements over things such as BSD License v. GPL.

Though I can see that people could think us extremist, in the same way they think rms is an extremist, or maybe an advocate for civil liberties etc. A big part of this is that we as the regulars (libervisco, a thing, tbuitenh, dylunio) are in at the deep end - we understand quite a lot about freedom and Free software etc. Thus people who are just coming in at the shallow end (understanding open source etc.) may find us 'the big swimmers' as extreme.

It has reminded me that I have still to finish our "Introduction to Freedom" (which I think is way to complicated at the moment too).

I havn't come up with much of a conclusion to anything here, mainly ramblings, maybe I'll be able to post something more coherent later.

I think that Nuxified.org is even more problematic in that regard than Libervis.com.

Libervis.com is by definition a political and philosophical site and it is to be expected that this is what we are going to be discussing. While the issue of how we come across to potential newbies on Libervis.com remains important, it is even deeper on Nuxified.org which isn't focused on philosophy, while it is run by people deep into this philosophy, namely me, a_thing plus core members like you, tbuitenh and a couple of moderators which aren't that deep into that stuff, but understand it well enough to get along.

Then when someone comes to Nuxified.org to ask a question about some Free Software program on Windows mentioning that he is still not switching because of this or that, the usual response by us the supposed core of the community will be an encouragement to try GNU/Linux where, along the way, someone may very well throw out some philosophical arguments, the freedom and all.

And that's where there is potential for friction. No matter how nicely we say it to them, if they percieve even a little of the message saying that they are using something "unethical" they may want to back out, they may be even offended that someone would even think they are unethical for choosing to use a certain OS. Maybe this is the feeling that drew these two members away from Nuxified.org.

And how do we deal with that? Do we simply cease mentioning any philosophical points in such conversations on Nuxified.org or wrap them up into a nice parallel. For example, instead of saying "GNU/Linux gives you freedom while Windows restricts it" I sometimes say "with GNU/Linux you are in control more so than with Windows because you can freely tinker with stuff etc.". By wrapping essentially the same argument into something that doesn't look so much as some weird philosophy as it may be perceived by some people, we are presenting it in a way that may come across much more nicely to those people.

But this wrapping up is not something we can enforce. We can't tell our Free Software supporters like, for example, a_thing who seems quite uncompromising in this regard, to start talking in a specific way just so that we don't scare people off. And that leaves us at the beginning of the problem making it seem almost impossible to purify Nuxified.org of all philosophical talks which may alienate some users in some way. It's a tricky situation.

Of course, this probably comes out of our uniqueness. Most other people may find this issue rather funny and pointless.

Maybe the problem lies not so much on what core members feel about Free Software philosophy, but about what the official position of Nuxified.org is. For example, when a Free Software advocate and enthusiast starts talking about ethics and freedom to a newbie who doesn't yet have full understanding of that stuff, it is different when this newbie perceives this talk as just that one man opinion than when this one man opinion is something officially backed by Nuxified.org.

Maybe the official position of Nuxified.org should be merely stated as impartial and myself as the admin as well as moderators advised to speak only for themselves when mentioning anything that stems from philosophical, not on behalf of Nuxified.org as an "organization". Nuxified.org as an org is then left without any official position.

I am not sure about this though.

Do you have any examples of where 'we' have 'pressured' people (well newbies) with the philosophical stuff on NXFD?

Will comment on the rest later when I have time.

dylunio

Well, one example that seems close to the current incident although it got to the point of being annoying to the user through the long discussion is evident in this comment. This is where D3MON pretty much felt offended by the implication that he was immoral for using OS X. We dared to enter the deep discussion and that's what it resulted in.

I tried to moderate the situation by the next comment.

But this is very much in line of what mjk apparently felt when writing that post today. It was written in response to a thread which calls GetGNULinux.org to target OS X users because OS X is no less freedom restricting than Windows. That particular reasoning apparently hit the nerve in mjk, and here's what we've got.

The bottom line seems to be that you just can't say something to a person that implies that this person is immoral on a site which endorses the view that supports this implication without having that person feel like the site is enforcing some sort of a religious view that separates people between "right" and "wrong".

It is interesting that it has been our non-fondness (I'm not sure if that is a word) of OSX and Apple which has been getting us into trouble. Why? Mybe because Macites are very proud etc. about their systems and software - just as we Free software advocates are.

But I think we should try not to say things are moral and immoral. Because morality is something very hard to pin down, some people think that sex before marriage is immoral, others do not. The people who believe it's immoral may curse the people who think it's moral as the spawn of Satan etc. and vice versa. So I think morality is too hard to define and has too many links with religion - we don't want to look like people blinded by faith, thus I do think we would drop the morality argument, but you may disagree.

This may cause problems though, since if we effectively ban the use of 'morality' don't we get rid of the right to use e.g. "GNU/Linux is more ethical than OSX"? I'm not sure. I think it is possible to use "GNU/Linux is ethical" - since it implies it is more ethical than other systems, but doesn't say it out right. My ideas on the use of 'ethical' are coming from the world of money where one has 'ethical banks' and 'banks' not 'ethical banks' and 'non-ethical banks' if you get my drift.

Maybe we should attack less, promote more? Promote the freedom of GNU/Linux, BSD etc. instead of saying that OSX and Windows are bad/unethical/immoral/whatever? Doesn't this give the argument the higher moral ground (damn the word 'moral' coming in!)?

This post has been a bit of a brain storm for me, so it's not very structured.

dylunio

You are right dylunio. Not only because of the sensitivity of the issue of "morality", but because the whole argument really wasn't as important as it seemed.

Being sort of desperate for some advice I've come to #gnu today and started a small discussion about what to do in a case like this, how to keep promoting and endorsing Free Software with a site without alienating some people who may disagree with Free Software purism. I got some good advice regarding the approach we take when talking to people who raise concerns like mjk did. The guy in #gnu actually thought our response to mjk could have been nicer. He even said this: "Basically, put the blame on yourself, instead of him."

Well, in fact, that's what I am doing right now with this examination, searching the blame internally instead of just accusing mjk for whatever..

Then someone mentioned the LinuxLinkTechShow podcast in which RMS was interviewed and since I thought of downloading and listening it before anyway, I downloaded and started listening. Who knows, maybe I get some ideas from the regular wiseguy.

One particular point hit me. RMS does not seem to take a moral highground towards people who use more proprietary software than him. Instead he simply says that it is their problem if they willingly choose to be victims of restrictions on their freedom. Darn it, this is so simple that it can't be simpler. Of course, why should we beat so much on the fact that someone uses proprietary software. Why arguing if they clearly show signs of making an informed decision, and chose to use proprietary software anyway. I could say they don't value their freedom. Sure, but it's not my problem. Now, those same people who run proprietary software often run some Free Software too and if they have some questions about that let them come to Nuxified.org and ask them. We'll help! If they ask a question about proprietary software problem we probably wont, and that's simply because from our point of view it would be helping them restrict themselves further.

That's the key. If you are a Free Software purist that doesn't mean your obligation is to conver everyone in sight to 100% Free Software. It simply means that you don't do anything to help anyone use proprietary software because you believe that proprietary software wrongfully restricts freedoms.

When we put things this way, there is no issue of moral highground between just users. The only place where this argument could kick in is when we talk to a developer choosing a license. As Free Software purists we would say that it would be wrong for this developer to choose a freedom restricting license. But we don't talk with proprietary software developers on Nuxified.org as much as we talk to users so the issue should really rarely come up.

And even if it does, we can make an advice, and back out. Freedom to disagree should be respected at all times. No verbal or any other coersion should take place.

People with different opinions can coexist. People who choose differently can coexist too. Heck, after all this I think that the only problem remaining is the one which should be easily resolvable should all sides involved be willing to talk: misunderstandings.

And over the email I think we're getting to it.

And I'll also be writing more about the principles being emphasized here.

Thanks

Log of libervisco and ams's conversation on IRC:
http://athingis.boldlygoingnowhere.org/ams-advice

Times are in UTC-8.

/me goes off to listen/read rms's speeches/essays.

Okay, I feel I can't say exactly what I think while still behaving like a moderator. On nuxified I'm not a moderator, but here on libervis I am... So...

MODERATOR MODE OFF

I think those two mac loving guys must be suffering from paranoid delusions or something. Nobody called anyone immoral, except us calling proprietary software distributors, not users immoral. Also, I don't believe there has been any type of attack on anyone just for mentioning using proprietary software. If it has happened, then show us the posts or irc logs, and I'll be the first to condemn whoever went wrong. So far, I have only seen accusations and no proof.

In my humble opinion they are just a bunch of liars, although maybe not deliberate liars. They're trying to smear nuxified for whatever their reason may be. It's wasting our time.

Can you tell I'm pissed off?

MODERATOR MODE ON

Perhaps we should make it more clear who we mean when we say "immoral". Maybe even put it in the introduction on the front page or something.

Whatever is the case, it wont hurt giving them the chance to prove their point. They say they have a problem with Nuxified.org? Fine, we wont delete your posts. We wont smear back on you. We'll give you a chance to make a point. We'll listen.

This is why I have decided to look into the state of things internally (the so called "audit") in case should we really find something wrong with us. Indeed, I have at least gotten some additional advice and come to a better understanding of some things. At this point I think I am at least better prepared to deal with disagreements in the community. Maybe, this experience made me a better moderator.

This is the *open*, liberal way of resolving the situation. It leaves everything out in the open for others, new members, to judge. That thread by mjk will remain there. This one will remain here too. A_thing just posted a log from IRC where I asked for advice. The whole response to the situation is now pretty much public for everyone to judge for themselves and see whether Nuxified.org and Libervis Network in general really opresses some kind of freedom or not.

I doubt that would be appropriate for Nuxified.org or much useful for Libervis.com. I think the term "immoral" should be used very scarcely. Besides, this is the feeling the "guilty ones" should have anyway without anyone saying it upfront, if they really are guilty. But of course, as you said and I earlier acknowledged, users are not immoral for making a choice of software they use even if it is proprietary. We will respect whatever choice they make. I think it's been said enough already that Nuxified.org is about helping people with Free Software, no matter who those people are, what their views are and what other software they run.

The reason I suggested to put something on the front page or about page is that it also says we never say "RTFM". "You are stupid for using proprietary software" is the same kind of response as "RTFM" is, so it may be helpful to mention it for showing our friendliness.

That said, I still don't believe anyone has been attacked for liking to use a proprietary program.