They were activists.
Do you really think we'd have so much free/open source software today without the contribution of Eric S. Raymond, Stallman, et al.?
They're activists.
Do you really think that we'd be here today if Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington never existed?
They were -- yep, you guessed it -- activists.
The American Revolutionary War was started because of political activism. They saw a chance to start a new country in whatever manner they pleased, and leapt at the opportunity. Even just a little effort put to really trying to get a voice in parliament would have worked fine, but instead we went and write the bloody Declaration in an attempt to rally support of other nations not really pleased with England (I'm looking at you France), and filled it with rhetoric, half-truths, and blatant lies. Okay, maybe not blatant, but they're there.
Really amazing that a war is mistaught to most American students. Okay, it isn't that amazing, I mean, you're going to teach your country's history in the most favorable light possible, but, still...
Your claim is wrong.
That's how the history is written, yes. And how the history is written...is irrelevant. Where are all these profitable, distant colonies with voices in parliament today? Australia? Canada? Technically not sovereign, but they operate as separate nations. No country in the world fits the description of the U.S. you claim would have otherwise been inevitable, and you don't give this a second thought. The oldest truism is the ephemeral nature of Empire. You let your piecemeal study of history delude you.
The civil rights movement and the early neocon movement are two examples of movements that suppressed crazy elements, and were highly successful for it.
Stallman is absolutely part of the answer.
Sure, not everybody can be RMS and live the way he does. He's still correct about the importance of values he's staked out and made a lifelong effort to demonstrate and respect. And to the GP's point, when you have content producers arguing they need legalized malware to police every machine, it makes it all the more obvious how much we need voices insisting on user freedom.
> More of those outliers that get lampooned in every media outlet for railing against the status quo?
While I agree it's good for activists to consider how their messaging might be received by various audiences, the fact that media outlets -- and even everyday citizens or presumably otherwise intelligent commentators on HN -- tend to collapse people to caricatures may not be an indictment of activists.
> Otherwise get back on the bench with the rest of us, because all your whining about mass media and celebrity culture is just that.
You've managed to work up a good froth of whine yourself there for somebody complaining about whining -- apparently summoned up to promote the ethic of more quiet frustration.
Even if effective political action can't let its end be posts on a website, it starts with people talking to each other. Maybe even here.
We live in a shallow society and the best thing the pro-privacy movement can have are moderately attractive, presentable, glib spokespeople.
[1] http://en.wikinoticia.com/Technology/linux/33921-the-young-r...
How might I be exaggerating?
> Yes, he is a nut.
Eccentric is what he is. Must be fun living in a black and white world.
If advancing a rational cause is nutty, being a nut sounds like a good plan.
EDIT: ok, that foot eating thing is weird.
Yes, he is a nut. In the sense of "no one will ever take him seriously, especially anyone involved in mainstream decision-making, who has ever read anything he has written," which is in this case the most relevant metric. Stallman is never going to be any help here, nor is anyone like him, because any "normal" person -- that is, one that other people won't ignore out of hand -- will ignore him out of hand. This includes politicians, to whom said "normal" people are the all-important majority.
"We need more activists" is bullshit. You think we need more activists? More of those outliers that get lampooned in every media outlet for railing against the status quo? Because that's what activists are to most people: Nuts and/or malcontents.
Of course, my real problem with this statement is exactly the same reason I'm not making it. You think we don't have enough activists? GO BE ONE. If you think they can do any good and you believe that "we are fucked" without them, stop posting on HN, get off your ass, and DO SOMETHING.
Otherwise get back on the bench with the rest of us, because all your whining about mass media and celebrity culture is just that. You can gripe all you want that people aren't doing anything, but as soon as you start telling people what they SHOULD be doing, either you'd better be doing it yourself or you'll have to excuse those of us -- everyone -- who will not take you seriously.
In the event that you actually are interested in backing up your hollow rhetoric: The only way to work this system is from the inside. So start campaigning, or start schmoozing, because while real change is essentially impossible, the only way to mitigate damage is by convincing the relevant politicians that it's in their best interests to do so.