Comment by bringen
1 year ago
Furthermore, while that same IP address (46.23.81.157) no longer hosts the stallman-report.org website, responding with "404 Site not found" if requested, it still has a certificate for stallman-report.org, which can be observed if a matching SNI record is sent during the TLS handshake:
Additional evidence has been uncovered linking Drew to this report, from Certificate Transparency data.
A search for all subdomains of drewdevault.com reveals rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com, which had certificates issued on 29th September 2024, a few days before stallman-report.org was registered:
https://crt.sh/?q=rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com
Helpfully, the Internet Archive monitors the Certificate Transparency logs and crawls all hostnames it finds. Which was done very soon after the certificate for rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com was logged:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault....
From this, we can see that it is an earlier copy of the document that currently exists on stallman-report.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240929110752/https://rms-draft...
https://archive.today/dPAb6
Drew popped up on this thread yesterday saying that he'd "read most of the report".
We can now ascertain that this was a lie and an attempt to mislead, because it's clear from the accumulation of evidence that he authored it. While writing and editing this document he would have read every word, not just "most of" it.
He is also keen to congratulate himself by not-so-humbly announcing that "the depth of this report is astonishing".
Knowing that the author has engaged in such deceptive sockpuppetry casts significant doubt on the document itself. How much of it has been written to mislead the reader and misrepresent the facts?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838124
> I've read most of the report and it's got a lot more than "last time". Speaking as someone who has done a lot of my own research on Stallman's bullshit, the depth of this report is astonishing. The allegations it makes regarding the conduct of the rest of the FSF is particularly alarming.
> I think you should at least skim it before you comment.
Alright, that's hilarious.
"Wow guys this is such a well-written piece. I wonder who could've put this together..."
I used to enjoy reading Drew's writings, but he's become such a complete goober lately (or I've just noticed it more).
I don't know what RMS's opinions have to do with running a free software organization, nor why they necessitate his cancelling, but apparently some people are incapable of compartmentalizing. I hate how common this has become.
2 replies →
> Knowing that the author has engaged in such deceptive sockpuppetry casts significant doubt on the document itself
Does it though? If we're expected to separate the message from the messenger for Stallman but not for Drew, isn't that a double standard?
Who cares where the information came from if the information is accurate?
3 replies →
Thank you. Sometimes I find myself in awe of the ability of random internet threads to dig out the background material needed to make sense of a a flame war.
This connection to Drew, combined with this comment from him here:
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/drew-chadwick-devault-ddevault...
puts some much needed light on the source of all this heat.
Your second link is worth reading again, seems it has had some rather concerning updates in the past day or two.
A post from that thread, linked below, is currently highlighted on that site's front page with the title "An open letter libeling Richard Stallman as a pedophile was probably written by Drew DeVault, a progressive open-source developer who has 10 years of history posting lolicon on reddit":
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/drew-chadwick-devault-ddevault...
It describes various of Drew's online habits over the years, including sharing artwork of prepubescent children in swimsuits. Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable non-pedophilic reason for this, and I do hope Drew will return to the comments here once more to explain.
Either way, with this in mind, it places this section of Drew's report in a rather different context:
https://stallman-report.org/#support-for-the-possession-of-c...