Many, many people have come forward, especially women, relating horrible experiences with RMS covering the last 30 years - which you are promptly disregarding as "alleged". If you do more research, you'll find many more non-anonymous stories from people about RMS's behavior.

For example, the FSF employees formed a union specifically to defend themselves against his behavior.[1][2]

This is how abusers continue their abuse - hiding behind others who keep excusing their behavior. RMS's behavior, regardless of cause, is not acceptable.

It's not "Cancel Culture", it's accountability.

[1] https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1374499598853545986 [2] https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1374541822693761025

> Many, many people have come forward, especially women, relating horrible experiences with RMS covering the last 30 years - which you are promptly disregarding as "alleged". If you do more research, you'll find many more non-anonymous stories from people about RMS's behavior.

I couldn't care less about RMS stupid ideas on his personal website. But if he abused people, that is really worrying. Thus, I have read all the anonymous and non-anonymous stories about him that I could find by following these links. I assume that all of these stories are true. But there's really nothing to it. All of such stories of "abuse" are variations of the following four:

1. he asked me out very awkwardly and I had to say no

2. he's a really bad flatmate

3. he spoke loudly over me at a conference

4. I have read his opinions and that made me uncomfortable

Really? Does any of this even merit a call for "accountability"? It seems very childish to me. As if he systematically farted in elevators. Of course, that's not nice, but does it really merit all this kerfuffle? Let people be weird!

No first-hand experience is enough any more, RMS has become the figurehead for that sector of tech that actually believes "cancel culture" exists because they're worried it's coming for their own abhorrent views next.

Even those Twitter posts are vague. What exactly did he do?

> A graffiti on his door at MIT

This was a joke that someone played on him [1] and he removed it as soon as he found it.

[1] https://whoisylvia.medium.com/richard-stallman-has-been-vili...

The page links to just that blog post, but the post links to other reports, and an earlier open letter had many links (https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix) to RMS's own blog; to substantiate their claim that RMS holds views objectionable to them.

> The page links to just that blog post, but the post links to other reports, and an earlier open letter had many links (https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix) to RMS's own blog; to substantiate their claim that RMS holds views objectionable to them.

But it seems like he's disavowed those comments (and did so prior to that website being compiled):

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/richard-stallman...

> "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it," Stallman wrote. "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per [sic] psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."

> Note: RMS apologized for this comment on 14 September, 2019.Citation. Edit made: 24 March, 2021 - 08:50 EDT.

But this issue isn't all that his detractors have found objectionable.