Bill Gates had bonds with Epstein. His multi decade marriage fell after the fact became public. He didn't get 1% the flak that Stallman had for commenting about a word to describe Marvin Minsky.
Bill Gates didn't say much about it, except he didn't know about any of the "bad stuff" and was deceived. Stallman said a bunch of to try to either claim that the victims weren't victims. Or to try to downplay what happened. Those are huge differences.
> Stallman said a bunch of to try to either claim that the victims weren't victims. Or to try to downplay what happened.
What he said was that the girl who was ordered to offer sex to Minsky would have been ordered to present it as if it was a willing offer.
This should not have been controversial.
One of the first things covered in Evil Villain School is that when you are using your slaves (sex or otherwise) to try to curry favor with someone who doesn't know you are an evil villain you provide a cover story so that person won't know they are dealing with slaves.
She was 17, and it happened in Florida where the age of consent was 18 at the time. So it really doesn't matter how "willingly" she may have presented herself.
Also, come on, I'm 37 and I wouldn't have sex with a teenager. Even beyond legality (which isn't really an issue, the dude is dead) there are the ethical considerations. This dude was sketchy and RMS is sketchy for defending him.
> She was 17, and it happened in Florida where the age of consent was 18 at the time. So it really doesn't matter how "willingly" she may have presented herself.
Stallman's whole point is that Epstein almost certainly concealed these facts from his associates. Stallman does not in any way argue that these women's and girls aren't victims, only that Minsky was likely unaware of this.
I don't see anything sketchy about defending one's dead friend: Minsky isn't alive to say "I had no idea these women were underage and being trafficked" and it seems natural Stallman wants to point this out to people calling his friend a pedophile and a rapist.
Correct, in some states it's a strict liability crime, but it's not without controversy: should a 25 year old who had sex with someone he met a bar, who entered with a fake ID indicating she was 21, be charged with rape of a child? Even if it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law, it's still a very important factor.
Which just demonstrates how nuts this all is. You’re in this jurisdiction on day X it’s one crime, another jurisdiction on day X+1 it’s another crime.
There are real crimes happening you can get upset about (and maybe even do something about). This is about internet points for people that want to be seen to be upset. They are trading on the suffering of the very people they purport to represent.
Yes those are indeed real crimes and there are real ways to effect change with respect to those issues.
RMS being a bozo isn’t a crime and internet outrage about it has no effect on real crimes.
If you donate $5 to a charity helping those affected, for instance, you’ll have done more than all the virtue signaling outrage in the world. You’re not raising awareness, you’re not changing opinions, it’s not “problematic”, you’re just getting your anger/attention rush. It has negative utility and value for the world, and you’re making things worse.
(You in the general sense, you understand. Not you specifically).
Nah I was dismissing faux outrage at a guy saying whatever dumb shit, and those people basing their outrage in large part on such arbitrary jurisdictional issues.
Outrage about the actual crime of human trafficking is of course called for but has nothing to do with RMS. Also, outrage at RMS won’t actually in any way address those crimes. But it feels good!
I don't care about RMS, but what are the arbitrary jurisdictional issues. There's nothing arbitrary or jurisdictional about human trafficking, just because might be of legal age. I feel like you aren't getting the fundamental issue that people base their shock/outrage/whatever off of. It's totally separate from thinking that attacking RMS over it will result in anything - as that's nothing but a strawman. There's no reason why criticism of anyone has to be tied to creating whatever societal-wide change is desired. That's just facially absurd.
Yes, Stallman was trying to get intranet points for Minsky, at a time when the local MIT people were protesting MIT's long-term support for the convicted sex trafficker Eppstein.
You are right that Stallman was trading on that suffering to defend his hero. There was no reason for him to say anything at all. His argument was not relevant as the hero he represented had been dead for year, and only served to shake a stick in a nest of already angry bees.
We don't have One World Government with globally consistent laws, and I hardly think that's what you want. Yes, the speed limit can change crossing a state border. Turning right on red may be legal in one place, and not legal a mile down the street.
I thought Minsky happened in the US Virgin Islands, where it was legal (but now isn’t, thankfully).
My issue is that “sketchy” isn’t enough to block a speaker from presenting on a subject where they have expertise. If MLK was alive today, would be be blocked for the “sketchy” behavior of cheating on his wife? Not that I have expertise enough to be invited to speak anywhere, but would I be blocked for the “sketchy” behavior of defending MLK?
This all seems like bikeshedding and is decreasing our intellectual growth that comes from sharing ideas about free software and developing from them.
> I thought Minsky happened in the US Virgin Islands, where it was legal (but now isn’t, thankfully)
Just looking at the natural experiment of differing ages of consent in different First World countries there doesn't seem to be an inherent problem with an age of consent below 18.
In the US it is 18 in only 11 states (Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin).
It is 17 in 6 (Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, and Texas).
In the other 33 plus DC it is 16.
In Europe it is 18 in 3 countries (Vatican City, Turkey, Malta), 17 in 2 countries (Cypress, Ireland), 16 in 20 countries, 15 in 12 countries, and 14 in 14 countries.
It's 16 in Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and most of Australia (17 in the rest).
I think it's reasonably controversial for RMS (or anyone) to make up such hypothetical excuses for Minsky. It's far simpler and easier to think, "wait, Minsky did what? that's awful, there's no excuse for that."
Epstein was very evil, but he was not an idiot. The null hypothesis should be that he ran his sex trafficking operation the way pretty much everyone else who has successfully gotten away with running a sex trafficking operation as long as he did has run theirs.
That includes instructing the people you have enslaved to not act like they are enslaved when they are around people who don't know you are a sex trafficker. You provide them with plausible cover stories that explain why they are around and why they are offering services to your guests.
Also, note that Minsky was not accused of having sex with the girl. His name came up in a deposition where she was asked to list some of the famous people she was told to offer sex to. The deposition did not cover which of those people accepted the offer. Greg Benford was there when she approached Minsky and says that Minsky declined.
Epstein was convicted for child trafficking long before his final arrest. People knew. Even if you believe he was a changed man, eventually you should figure out what's happening if you are offered sex by a very young person in relation to Epstein.
>Stallman said a bunch of to try to either claim that the victims weren't victims.
This is a lie. I don't believe you are lying, just repeating something you have read, but it's a lie all the same. You can read his comments yourself. He was entirely consistent that the victims were victims and that Epstein was a sex trafficker. His remarks were probably inappropriate but nothing like what people accused him of.
Stallman's sin is that he doesn't know how to comport himself publicwise. He is insensitive. He will talk about any topic at any time or place, no matter how taboo and no matter how strange his opinion. This is bad behavior, but not evil behavior.
Gates had a personal relationship with Epstein that started after Epstein was first convicted of sexual abuse of children [2] and after allegations of his sex trafficking were publicized. [3] He flew on Epstein's plane, repeatedly visited his home, and had dinner with him on many occasions. Gates and Epstein were usually entertained by young and attractive women at these meetings. [2] His wife was deeply uncomfortable with their friendship and told Gates this at the time. Gates evidently hid the extent of their friendship from his wife, as she ultimately divorced him when the details emerged in the Times. [1]
But Gates' personal behavior is atrocious even if we leave Epstein aside. Gates has, for decades, made unwanted sexual advances at female subordinates and had sexual relationships with multiple employees during his marriage. This behavior was well known to employees at both Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. [1]
I’ve read the mailing list comments. The problem is that he is trying to excuse something potentially horrible without sufficient data. A far better statement IMO would be to say that I hope Minsky didn’t know of the coercion or age. Because he doesn’t know what Minsky did or didn’t know.
If you’re around criminals enough, most of them try to simultaneously deny involvement while at the same time trying to excuse the crime. I’m not saying Stallman has this criminal mentality. I don’t know. But the types of statements are similar to those we all run into. And I think this also causes people to raise red flags.
Everyone else was trying to condemn Minsky based on just as little evidence. Why is that OK but defending him isn't?
I am not trying to claim Stallman isn't strange and insensitive. He is unlikable and unpleasant to be around. I just don't think that's such a big deal. Our society tends to condemn the honest weirdo but ignore the charismatic predator. That has got to change.
>Bill Gates didn't say much about it, except he didn't know about any of the "bad stuff" and was deceived
The quote everyone seems to remember from Stallman was basically the same thing: he said that Minsky was deceived.
Stallman was also criticized for, inter alia, keeping lewd pictures on the wall of his office at the Free Software Foundation, and (IIRC) hugging people without asking in a way that made them uncomfortable. But I haven't heard anything about that in this thread until I said it myself.
Stallman's comments were later exaggerated by several bloggers, to make them sound outrageous. Somehow the untrue misdeeds have outweighed the real ones, which makes it hard to believe there has been an honest evaluation of the situation.
I haven't seen a single credible claim that Gates participated in anything inappropriate. The biggest red flag IMO is that his wife divorced him over it.
Given how open of a secret this apparently was in Hollywood circles, it's a little hard to believe someone as well connected as Bill Gates wouldn't have any shred of an idea...
why would he go and hang out at an infamous convicted felon's house when it was a widely publicized story by that time? like, how did he even end up there?
> Gates first met face to face on the evening of Jan. 31, 2011, at Mr. Epstein's townhouse on the Upper East Side (nyt)
> Stallman said a bunch of to try to either claim that the victims weren't victims.
No, Stallman said that the people involved didn't necessarily know that the women and girls were trafficked - that Minsky was unaware that these people were victims as Epstein probably ordered them to present themselves as willing participants. This is a vastly different thing than claiming "the victims weren't victims". This comment just reinforces my belief that people's perception of Stallman are based in misinformation.
There are good reasons to distance oneself from Stallman - among others his assertion that being paid to write closed-source software is unethical, which I think is too radial to be productive - but I worry people are distancing themselves on account of mistruths.
I doubt anyone who spent a lot of time with Epstein didn’t know. I’m sure many didn’t participate, but everything I’ve read suggests Epstein was practically radiating his obsession with young girls.
The difference - one is naively engaging with the topic to try and defend his friend, while the other is saying the predictable politically correct thing that gets attention off him the quickest.
The difference is them managing their PR - ability and opportunity. Bill's achievement is not avoiding the flak from this latest thing. He was able to completely rebrand himself from ruthless businessman to an affable philanthropist.
Bill Gates is a billionaire, guarded by assistants, PR consultants, and crisis management consultants. RMS is an awkward nerd, one step up from couch surfing. Easy targets are easy targets.
I expect Gates has a PR firm tasked with reducing this kind of stuff. And I am cynical enough to believe it includes astroturfing any social media or site (including HN) to disinfo it away.
