RMS is a huge figure head and representative of free software, so it matters what he says and does.

I have seen no-one argue that everything RMS has said is bunk because of this, personally I think he has had some good ideas, sure; but that doesn’t mean I just ignore everything else because “its politics and not free Software related”.

Free Software is in itself political, maybe the links between RMS’s words and actions, and Free Software are not direct or even close - but separating “politics” and Free Software just seems like burying your head in the sand.

A lot of the ‘debunking’ here is very poor, it assumes Stallman’s innocence at every junction, argues that Stallman’s word is more important than his actions, fails to engage with the full complexity of arguments against him, and more than once uses “but he’s tender hearted, so he can’t be bad” as an argument.

Certainly not “rational and objective” like it claims.

I’m not really adding to the conversation with this but wanted to share anyway:

I can’t disagree with you on that, you’re absolutely right - I suppose my read just gives the author the benefit of the doubt that it’s not ‘better AI’ that we deserve, but a better internet (i.e. with no AI whatsoever).

Personally I read it as a general “demand better”, “don’t accept crap wrapped in gold” as an offensive principle against (de)generative AI. Perhaps I’m inserting my own positive spin on their words, but it seems to me that their point is “don’t let the hype win”; if these companies are pushing AI, forming dependencies on bad tech, then we need to say “not good enough” and push back on the BS. Deny the ability of low quality garbage to ‘fulfil’ our needs. It’s not a directly practical line to be sure (how do we do this exactly?), but it does drill down past “AI is bad” to a more fundamental (and arguably motivating) point - that we, all of us, deserve better than to drown in a sea of crap and that’s still important.