Call upon major web sites to reveal the shills
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| phsolide Mar 29, 2009 1:08 PM EDT |
I'd like to take this opportunity to call upon major web sites (Slashdot, Groklaw, Ars Technia, etc) to expose the shills. It can't be that hard to classify articles based on phrases in them: the problem of dealing with large corpora and discovering authorship, while not solved, is not in its infancy any more, either. Once you have some classifications, look up the IP addresses of the most copious posters for the classifications. If they come from MSFT or Wagg-Ed, You've Got Shills! It's easy. PS I believe "The Beez" is correct: I think that some "pro-linux" people are actually financed by MSFT or their PR tentacles. |
| azerthoth Mar 29, 2009 2:45 PM EDT |
Wow, way to uphold Stallmans, Your only free if your free as we define, stance. in this case, your free to say what you want where you want however you want, until you say something that does not agree with our world view. Gotta love internet censorship in the name of the common good. |
| gus3 Mar 29, 2009 2:56 PM EDT |
Mindcraft. SCO. The Canopy Group (sort of). I'm sure there are more that my fatigued brain can't dredge up right now. Oh yeah, can't leave out Gartner. BayCon 2004 had a panel about the SCO lawsuit. I don't remember the exact title of the panel, but I called it the "Shooting Fish in a Barrel Panel." Anyway, this British tech journalist in the audience commented during the Q&A that only in the USA did he ever see so-called "reporters" give a standing ovation at the end of a news conference. Anywhere else he'd been, Microsoft and their SCO lackeys would have been derided and humiliated on-camera for this kind of psychotic chutzpah. |
| caitlyn Mar 29, 2009 3:27 PM EDT |
Most of the people at IT Wire and some at Computerworld qualify as shills. @azertoth: I don't support the RMS world view or his definition of freedom as you know. I do support freedom of speech. That includes exposing less than honest reporting. |
| tracyanne Mar 29, 2009 3:58 PM EDT |
What, precisely, is Richard Stallmans World view, And what is it you find so irksome? |
| azerthoth Mar 29, 2009 4:24 PM EDT |
@caitlyn there is exposing, such as beez did, and exposing such as the thread starter calls for. I'm all for calling people out on their uninformed or unfounded positions. @TA, when your free only as someone else defines that freedom, and that definition it the only acceptable one then there is something wrong with the picture, because then there is no freedom of dissent either. For Stallman and his devout followers, anyone who does not believe exactly as they do, is in effect stepping forward to be morally judged and found lacking. |
| tracyanne Mar 29, 2009 5:58 PM EDT |
Since when has Richard Stallman tried to stop anyone from doing as they wish? The only thing I've ever seen him get upset about is whether or the GPL is honoured. Sometimes I think you Yanks take yourselves way too seriously. |
| phsolide Mar 29, 2009 6:17 PM EDT |
Hey, I'm not calling for censorship: I'm calling for exposure of shills and astroturfers. The problem with shilling and astroturfing is that the shiller/turfer is taking credibility from an undeserved source: the wisdom of an expert, undiluted by prejudice, or the hard-won experience of a tinkerer. Exposing a poster who gives condescending anti-linux advice isn't censorship, it's more of a public service. Why is the following censorship? Shilling and astroturfing are forms of commercial speech, not political or other. We've always limited commercial speech somewhat - Truth in Advertising Laws, anyone? I want major web sites to put together large corpora of their comments and talkbacks, and formulate some criteria for "shill-like" comments/talkbacks. It shouldn't be too hard, maybe make a word vector from the Halloween Documents or something, using this: http://sourceforge.net/projects/wvtool At that point, get the the IP addresses of the most prolific posters that match a "shill vector". See if they come from MSFT or Wagg-Ed addresses. If the shills don't disclose their own affliation, then disclose it for them. I'd do it myself, but I don't have access to a lot of talkbacks/comments and the IP addresses they came from. |
| caitlyn Mar 29, 2009 8:51 PM EDT |
@tracyanne: RMS defines non-free software as immoral or unethical. That, by definition, has a religious and intolerant quality to it. I do not see proprietary software as immoral or unethical even though I generally see FOSS software as preferable. I want the freedom to choose proprietary software or not choose it as I see fit. I want the ability to license any code I create as I see fit. The RMS definition of freedom excludes those choices and defines me as unethical if I make a choice he doesn't approve of. |
| tracyanne Mar 29, 2009 9:01 PM EDT |
Actually caitlyn, he defines proprietary software as immoral or unethical for specific reasons, which he also defines. I've never yet seen him attempt to stop anyone from using it. And BTW I think it is unethical to create or attempt to create scarcity artificially, which is the purpose of proprietary software licenses. |
| tuxchick Mar 29, 2009 9:57 PM EDT |
Geez caitlyn and azerthoth, how about you come up with some actual quotes from RMS where he tries to control the choices made by software users? He says that proprietary software is unethical. AFAIK he has never said that users of proprietary software are immoral or unethical. phsolide, an "Expose the Shills!" project might be fun. Though it seems to me that Linux and FOSS need more positive high-profile exposure, and we already have an over-abundance of critics who counter the endless rivers of anti-FOSS nonsense. |
| azerthoth Mar 29, 2009 11:46 PM EDT |
Wow TC, that one is fairly easy to refute, look to his comments on Gentoo or Debian, he wishes to make it impossible for the end user to have access to proprietary software at all. Regardless his interview on ttlts he came out and said it out right. Kind of like M$ not going after the users, but attacking suppliers with their patents. RMS is just the other side of the same coin when it comes to wanting to control your computer. |
| gus3 Mar 30, 2009 12:19 AM EDT |
az: Links or it didn't happen. You made the assertion. Pony up. |
| tracyanne Mar 30, 2009 12:37 AM EDT |
Every time I've checked up on what Stallman actually said, as opposed to what it was asserted he said (not every time an assertion is made, granted, but enough times to have formed an opinion), I discover he didn't actually say what it is that is asserted, but that, in fact, he is being misinterpreted/misrepresented. It seems to me that there are a lot of Free software users who take exception to his stance on proprietary software, and they seem to take his opinion personally when they choose to and even like the proprietary software they use. |
| azerthoth Mar 30, 2009 12:49 AM EDT |
http://tllts.org/mirror.php?fname=tllts_165-11-01-06.mp3 |
| tracyanne Mar 30, 2009 4:51 AM EDT |
Ok I listened to the interview. Where precisely does he say, or even intimate, that he "he wishes to make it impossible for the end user to have access to proprietary software at al"? Once again it seems to me he is being misrepresented. Stallman uses very precise language, and nowhere did i hear him say anything that remotely sounded like the above. I think people who object to Stallman tend to read into what he says their own misconceptions of what his goals are. |
| tuxtom Mar 30, 2009 8:37 AM EDT |
Quoting:For Stallman and his devout followers, anyone who does not believe exactly as they do, is in effect stepping forward to be morally judged and found lacking.I proudly step forward to be morally judged be found lacking. It wouldn't be the first time. |
| tracyanne Mar 30, 2009 8:49 AM EDT |
I think you'll find TT, that the only people doing any judging, are people who seem to have some sort of dislike of Stallman (and I can't see any good reason for that dislike). |
| jdixon Mar 30, 2009 9:08 AM EDT |
> and I can't see any good reason for that dislike You can find reasons to dislike anyone if you look for them. Of course, the converse is also true. Stallman has his good points and bad points, just like everyone else. |
| KernelShepard Mar 30, 2009 9:54 AM EDT |
azerthoth & caitlyn: I don't think RMS applies that moral judgment on people who use non-Free Software. However, some of his more zealous followers do. ...and those people tend to promote the idea that they are doing what they do in RMS' name - effectively, they are on a religious crusade in the name of their God just like the crusaders of yore, too blinded by their zealousness to even realize that their God would not approve. |
| machiner Mar 31, 2009 11:30 AM EDT |
Proprietary software isn't immoral. At best it's amoral. Here is one point where I disagree distinctly with Stallman. Some users deciding to use proprietary software are immoral - they are accepting someone else's decree complete with all the warts and they whine about it but don't lift a finger to change it. That is immoral. But...by who's standards? Maybe universal, but.... The company hawking their wares, proprietary, are operating within the confines of capitalism, which, some would say is immoral. Maybe. Amoral, sure. Being compensated for one's work is immoral? I dunno -- however the company hawking the wares, let's just say Microsoft because...ya know. Anyway, they produce a product and attach their own rules. OK. Where's the harm in that? Many of you will say -- "FINE!" And I might agree. OK, where's the moral ambiguity in this? Back to capitalism and a discussion or a different day. However, by accepting the restrictions we assume the morality of the [transaction] in question and anything else to follow. It's immoral to accept a thing that thwarts the individual's liberty? If I let you crap all over me, I'm the immoral one - you are just being Human, as it's our nature to take advantage, to be the opportunist. Sure, you're a jerk, but I let you. Humans are amoral, chaotic neutral. Morals come from others - you can get yours off my lawn. Now, kid! Morality and software? Please. Software is 1s and 0s. Are you looking for God in there? Morality and licensing? If you would argue that the license is (without)moral, or (anti)moral, because of whatever restrictions hoisted upon your soggy liberty then fine but it's you that accepts the responsibility of it. Proprietary software is nothing without the license making it so. Maybe it's the licensing that's immoral. Yeah. It's how it's presented and nothing more. Is it? A license is a colleciton of words. Interpretations can be immoral. Amoral is bad? By whos standards? Yours? lol. Immorality is bad by whose standards? Define it. Get another to agree with your definition and then argue it into the ground and bring your point to someone who cares. Because your morality is not mine and I don't accept yours until you present it to me and it makes sense. It's immoral of you to demand that I agree with anything you say at all. Which asserts that licensing is immoral. Can we accept a definition of immorality that asserts this? lol. A point of view is all that it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Any morality you ascribe to it is your own doing. For better or worse. Moreover, without Stallman where would we be now? Accept what he says or not -- who cares, really? But turn your back on what he is and you're the shill, pal. Turn your back on where he has brought us and then come to my house and try to tell me a thing is true, or immoral. lol. |
| azerthoth Mar 31, 2009 12:47 PM EDT |
I have plenty of respect for what he has done and where he has brought us to. His accomplishments are nothing less than staggering and are worthy of anyone's respect regardless of whether they agree with him on all points or not. However like the aging ingenue desperate for one more starring role, he is on the road now to destroy all that he has built, I have said before and will say again. His shining moment of accomplishment was the GPLv2. It was brilliant and pertinent. It accomplished what it set out to and did so in a clear manner. While nothing can tarnish that document, with his never ending one more, one better, he can damage severely what it was that he built. For where he brought us, I am eternally grateful. For where he is trying to take us, I can see only destruction. Just my .02 |
| tracyanne Mar 31, 2009 8:37 PM EDT |
@Az Quoting:For where he is trying to take us, I can see only destruction. So please tell me, where is he trying to take us? And please point to RMS Quotes and articles that support this. I'm somewhat sceptical, especially given that the last time you pointed to a supporting article it did the opposite. |
| tracyanne Mar 31, 2009 9:06 PM EDT |
@machiner Quoting:Proprietary software isn't immoral. Morality can't be used to attributed software, nor the people who create it (at least not the process of creating software). Ethics can be attributed to software, or at least the behaviour of those who create/distribute software. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!