Drew DeVault has officially lost it [LWN.net]

Drew DeVault has officially lost it

Posted Jan 29, 2025 10:44 UTC (Wed) by jhe (guest, #164815)
In reply to: Drew DeVault has officially lost it by cen
Parent article: FOSDEM keynote causes concerns

Yes, something is not well with Drew, but this a known thing and has been going on for years. The question is, why did LWN consider it a good idea to bring it up. Drew is a "lolcow" at this point and should not be given visibility, both to avoid people getting enraged by his stuff and to ensure his own safety from these people.

to post comments

Drew DeVault has officially lost it

Posted Jan 29, 2025 13:08 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

Are you seriously implying that things Drew does should not be publicized because other people might attack him, and that this is in some way his fault?!

Drew DeVault has officially lost it

Posted Jan 29, 2025 18:42 UTC (Wed) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (1 responses)

People in this thread are attacking Drew because of his position on RMS. Whether you think that that's "his fault" is mostly a matter of whether you agree with him.

Drew DeVault has officially lost it

Posted Jan 29, 2025 18:58 UTC (Wed) by jhe (guest, #164815) [Link]

It is because of his inflammatory writing style, which is entirely avoidable.

Drew DeVault has officially lost it

Posted Jan 29, 2025 15:15 UTC (Wed) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link] (7 responses)

The suggestion that someone should not be given visibility to ensure their safety goes against our guidelines against personal attacks. Please do not do that again.

Drew DeVault has officially lost it

Posted Jan 29, 2025 19:04 UTC (Wed) by jhe (guest, #164815) [Link] (6 responses)

This is to far-fetched to be plausible. I think this is a smokescreen and i violated some other taboo. I concede that i said something offensive, but even after consulting a 3rd person, we can't figure out what i did wrong. I'm at loss.

Drew DeVault has officially lost it

Posted Jan 29, 2025 19:35 UTC (Wed) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link] (5 responses)

I thought it was pretty clear, but I'll elaborate: saying that a person should not be "given visibility...to ensure his own safety" can be read as a veiled threat against them. If that was not something you considered and it was not meant that way, great, but it can be read that way. Thanks in advance for your understanding.

Drew DeVault has officially lost it

Posted Jan 29, 2025 20:49 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> I thought it was pretty clear, but I'll elaborate: saying that a person should not be "given visibility...to ensure his own safety" can be read as a veiled threat against them.

And I hate to have to point it out, but it can equally be read as a warning that "you are painting a target on your back".

You are falling into the BBC "balanced coverage" trap. Where people who don't understand what is going on believe that ANY logical argument that makes sense deserves equal coverage. Never mind that some of those arguments clearly belong in some alternate scientific reality.

Which is heaver? A pound of feaathers? A pound of lead? It's obviously a pound of lead, because if you drop them together the lead will hit the ground first.

You're journalists. If you're doing your job PROPERLY you can't jump to conclusions, and I'm afraid I think you have. Yes this could have been a threat. But I don't think so - to me it reads as a clear warning - "you're asking for trouble, AND NOT FROM ME!"

Cheers,
Wol

'can be read' is not a valid standard of reading

Posted Jan 29, 2025 23:25 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] (3 responses)

If 'can be read" is the new standard here, I do not feel safe to comment anymore. English is such an ambiguous language that anything that non-native speaker write 'can be read' in a hundred different way.
Context matters. Especially If you allow selective quoting by using ellipsis.

You could just have said, "Calling someone lolcow is offensive and unwelcome on LWN". That does not require 'can be read'.

'can be read' is not a valid standard of reading

Posted Jan 30, 2025 0:03 UTC (Thu) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (1 responses)

Let's not be melodramatic here. LWN is within their rights to make reasonable moderation choices about what comments they wish to host on their website. The original comment was at the very least suggesting that a heckler's veto applies to DeVault and LWN should therefore avoid covering him, which is already a problematic argument even if you don't interpret it as a threat of any kind.

But reading it as a threat is not out of the question either. The hypothetical of someone committing an act of violence against DeVault because he wrote something "wrong" on his blog seems (to my mind) so absurd as to be farcical. But if we don't think that's a serious possibility, then that leaves 2½ other readings: The comment can be read as pure trolling (suggesting a danger which does not exist, for the purpose of upsetting people), as a veiled threat (suggesting that the commenter will create the danger), or as an intentionally ambiguous mixture of both. Either way, it does not belong on LWN.

'can be read' is not a valid standard of reading

Posted Jan 30, 2025 11:42 UTC (Thu) by jhe (guest, #164815) [Link]

It doesn't need to be an assault. It is already a big amount of mental stress if strangers paintball or spray your house. This has happened before.

Whatever, if y'all are sure that Drew got this situation under control, I'll shut up about it.

'can be read' is not a valid standard of reading

Posted Jan 30, 2025 0:40 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

The name-calling was definitely part of the decision here; we could have made that more explicit.