Re: purism why does fsf and libreboot embrace a misleading company?

[Aaron Wolf]

On 2020-03-11 14:33, a via libreplanet-discuss wrote:
> My post is about getting official comments from
> libreplanet and fsf. Of course anybody can
> reply, but I already know how people attempt
> to defend purism's behavior.
> 
> 
> On 3/11/20 8:48 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> If I understand you correctly, you believe: Purism marketing talks about
>> software freedom and the goal of RYF 100% free hardware, but they don't
>> deliver to that level, and they minimize or hide the details. You worry
>> that people buy Purism products believing they are getting more complete
>> freedom than they actually receive. You doubt Purism's good faith, and
>> because you feel FSF should be skeptical rather than gracious about
>> these concerns, FSF is making a mistake by giving Purism a platform or
>> acknowledgment (at least without some explicit qualifiers from FSF about
>> these concerns). Is that right?
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> I agree with you that marketing claims should not mislead people about
>> the facts of products. Stating a goal of reaching some standard is not
>> the same as already being there, and the difference should be plain and
>> transparent.
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
>>
>> I don't find your jump to speculating about bad faith at all warranted.
>> There's no evidence that FSF is corrupted in any way around this. And
>> there's inadequate (though perhaps non-zero) evidence that Purism has
>> any bad faith.
> 
> 
> https://trisquel.info/en/forum/librem13-fully-free-time
> 
> educate yourself.
> 
> About purism they claimed about their notebooks that
> there was a real possibility that intel would publish
> the software in question. Everybody in the field
> know, intel does not publish such
> pieces of source software.
> 
> purism claimed reverse engineering was an option. The
> software in question is signed. Name a cryptographer who will
> agree, that breaking the cryptography is an option?
> 
> As I said, one email to libreboot would have been enough.
> Also after people told purism that their claims were
> unfounded, purism did not rectify their websites.
> 
> It is swindle if you deceive people in order to gain
> money.
> 
> About fsf.
> fsf is known to be strict and harsh in matters of free
> software. It is a mystery why fsf has acted that amateurishly
> about purism. That is why I ask, has fsf received money
> or hardware from purism? Are there people who at the
> same time represent both fsf and purism?
> 
>> In general, you're more likely to learn and also to get others to listen
>> when you express concerns from a position of genuine curiosity without
>> hints of accusations and other attacks.
> 
> 
> You do realize I have stated arguments? You have not. A
> pattern I have noticed from other defenders of purism.
> 
> fsf has been informed by me and maybe others, how
> purism has acted. It makes fsf an accessory in
> purism's fraud. fsf failure on this matter results in loss of
> credibility among those who are able to look behind
> purism's deceptions.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> It can also help to try to create a *strong-man* argument. Generate the
>> strongest argument you can for a defense of Purism and FSF, and then see
>> if that holds up to scrutiny. That's much more insightful than
>> generating weak or straw-man arguments or speculative suspicions.
> 
> 
> Start rebut my arguments.
> 

I made no arguments because I don't have a position on this, I don't
know that you are are, and I wasn't defending Purism.

What I did was demonstrate a more effective way of communicating by
verifying if I understood, describing where I agree, and offering
feedback. All I'm saying is that you are inherently likely to be read
dismissively with the style of posting you used. Style has no relation
to accuracy. Someone can have effective style and be wrong or have lousy
style and be right. But people won't listen to badly-communicated ideas
that are still right.

To avoid dismissal by others, I suggest you state the clear facts
distinctly from the accusations and stories. You already did better in
your reply to me. But for further clarification, something like this:

"Purism claimed working toward X, but X is effectively impossible.
The suspicion I have is that they are not acting in good faith.
FSF let them present at LibrePlanet. The story in my mind is: FSF should
have independently recognized the concerns I have and not trust Purism
to be acting in good faith."

I don't know if your suspicions are valid or not. All I know is that the
type of animosity I've seen toward Purism has resulted in posts
attacking them with language that assumes bad faith rather than posts
that lead me to share that conclusion. There's a spectrum from misguided
good faith to all-out bad faith. I don't have enough evidence to convict
Purism of bad faith, even though I can accept the criticism of some of
their marketing.