@joannaholman wrote
marketplace of ideas is such a silly metaphor
Exactly. If there's a "marketplace of ideas", they need to face the fact that we're not interested in what they're selling.
And then when they pivot to whining about their freedom of expression, we can remind them that we also have freedom of association. They can talk all they want, but no one's obliged to listen.
@serapath That can work. It's a specific implementation of a more-general principle: stop fetishising so-called "geniuses" by giving them credit for the work of hundreds or thousands of others. Focus on collective/collaborative work rather than "great men."
The best open-source maintainers are not BDFLs basking in public adulation; they're quiet, caring, competent managers who focus on supporting the project's contributors.
(The same applies to managers in the workplace.)
@clolsonus Yes, as I mentioned in another reply, there's little difference between building a personality cult around RMS or Linus and building a personality cult around Elon or Donald.
Personality cults are broken by design, because they free the "Big Man" from the social norms and peer censure that are needed for society to function.
@streetcoder wrote
I don't have time to read ...
Yeah, I guessed.
This isn't about the principle of free software; this is about the willingness of a community to shelter and enable toxic behaviour at an institutional level.
We see this with all personality cults, whether they involve free software, electric car manufacturers, or politics. As soon as we start engaging in "Big Man" worship, the rests follows its disgusting-but-inevitable path.
I've contributed to and created free software since the late 1980s, but I've never participated in the social side like FSF or Linux conferences.
Reading the Stallman Report has removed any lingering regrets that I might have missed out on something.
Were conference attendees really OK with stuff like RMS's recurring "Emacs Virgin" sketches? They didn't all just walk out in disgust? 
