• Handles@leminal.space
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I only read up to the part where they pinned the Stallman Report on DeVault and then claimed that thing they just mentioned definitely had nothing to do with this hit piece, nope, nothing.

    Need I read any further, i.e. does this have legs beyond “we dug up some dirt on this guy because he said bad things about our groupthink ringleader”?

    • TehPers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Up to you. Two people can make mistakes at the same time. Whether there is truth to the claims, I’m not sure, but if there is truth then there are some unpleasant details in it.

      • Handles@leminal.space
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah, I’m not invested in either online opinion-haver, but have read the occasional tech post by both that made sense… in isolation from their idiosyncratic ickinesses.

        I’m sure this “DeVault Report” may have truth to it, I was just turned off by the first, retaliatory paragraphs. Like, “we could’ve let you perv on minors, but then you went after our guy” vibes.

        • TehPers@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 minutes ago

          Yeah, the timing of the article makes it clear what the motive is. It’s to distract discussion away from the article about Stallman.