>Not your project, not your choice.

I feel like this should be obvious to anyone who has ever read a blogpost or editorial, but the author isn't literally commanding all free software projects to stop using discord as if he has that kind of authority, he's making a recommendation and then goes into detail about why he thinks this way, ending with some alternatives. It's bizarre seeing someone react to an article like this with offense not because of any of the content or points, but for... not showing enough deference in their title?

If you're working on a project and just happen to choose a free software license, then fair enough. (perhaps you'd call yourself more of an "open source" contributor). If however you are acting due to the free software ethos, I think it's fair for others who share the ethos to chime in with their opinion on how well you're doing it. It doesn't have to be a witch hunt, but these things matter more than a zero amount.

What’s the difference between “just happening” to choose a free license and “acting due to the free software ethos?”

Hopefully the free software ethos police doesn’t come knocking on my door because I used GPL 3.0 without having the right mindset.

If you as the maintainer said "hey, I don't really care about Free Software, I just think this is a fun/useful project and the GPL 3.0 meets my needs." and people still bugged you about Discord, I agree you should probably just tell them to fuck off. They might still try to get you on board with Free Software in the first place, but it wouldn't make sense to bother you about details like a chat program if/while you don't care about the cause.

However if you said "I'm creating this project because I care about user freedom" someone might point out "Great. Well, since we're on the same page as far as user freedom, let's take a look at the tools we're using..."

All of that is correct, but, it does not mean that suggestions cannot be made. So, the article linked here mentions their suggestions, I mention my suggestion, etc.

Yes, private conversions about contributions to free software projects are possible and are sometimes desirable. But, messages on the official channels for communications should normally be public; people can (and should) of course still use their own private communication as needed, too, but does not mean you cannot have a public one too.

Suggestions? Seems more like demands in the linked blog post.

There's no coercive power behind them. You're free to do what they say or not.

> I find it hilarious that someone would find themselves feeling entitled enough to tell a bunch of unpaid open source developers how to communicate with one another as if that someone were their boss at a company. The only place where I’m told what communication tools to use is at work, where I’m paid to comply.

They are making a moral argument against discord. If they said it was not acceptable for free software projects to go around hitting people on the head with clubs would that be entitled?

I didn’t find the moral arguments against Discord convincing.

Tin foil hat paranoia isn’t enough for me. The author is assuming their door is gonna get busted down and they’re going to get arrested over their discussions about a bug fix for an open source widget.

I’m not telling anyone to do anything.

I’m telling people what they should not do: that is, don’t discriminate against people who insist on privacy.

Choosing to use Discord does that, so people who don’t want to discriminate should not choose to use Discord.

I’m also offering them alternatives that don’t discriminate against those people, so that they can make better choices if they decide that they don’t want to be the kinds of projects that discriminate against segments of their userbase.

I think if you humbly said you’d prefer people to not use Discord you’d not get this backlash. But you’re making a demand - it’s rude and will instantly turn people against you before they really consider your arguments.

This is literally tone policing, though. Knock it off.

The argument against tone policing in a social justice sense is that people who are being wronged by society are allowed to be angry.

This person isn't being wronged. They just don't like the software other people chose to use in their projects which have nothing to do with the author of the blog post!

If someone tells you they're suffering racism you should listen no matter how it sounds to you. If someone tells you they don't like that you're using Slack and that you should not use it, you're right to tell them to sod off until they can be polite.

Criticizing someone for making demands, or pointing out that not making demands is more likely to actually accomplish what they want, is not tone policing.

You are more than welcome to not participate in any group that uses Discord, that is your choice not something that someone else is making you do. It isn't discrimination for a project to be using a tool that you don't want to use.

I am a member of a public, nonprofit organization that uses a tool that explicitly bans me, automatically, when I am trying to use it in a way that protects my privacy.

That sounds like a reason to complain to the management of that organization and see if they can work something out or pick a different tool, not write a blog post ranting about how much you dislike this company.

This blog post is precisely that complaint. Discord banned me and deleted my account when I sent them the link.

> I’m not telling anyone to do anything.

> I’m telling people what they should not do

Those two things are the same.

> “Free” refers to the software license of the source code. That is it.

You might want to read this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

That's one person's idea about what "free" means. GNU and Stallman don't own the concept of "free", nor do they claim it