[Free Software and Freedom in a Digital Society, a talk conducted by Richard Stallman, took place on the 19th of April, 2024 at Universidade do Minho; the event was organized by CeSIUM. There was a first draft of this write-up that I clumsily lost, and I warn in advance of any possible misrepresentation of the actual events.]

Having Richard Stallman at my local university felt like a very big deal, even though his contributions to the world of computer science were not clearly asserted in my mental space. He had a decisive role in the establishment of GNU (to which Linux is frequently associated) and has, for a long time, been the spearhead for the Free Software Foundation. If the reader is into programming/computer science/technology in general, they are bound to have been in touch with some of Stallman's ideas about libre software — if not with any of the tools he helped build; otherwise, rest assured: he is one of the major entities in the field for the last fifty years.

Unfortunately, some other life commitments were in the way of my attending the talk: the best case scenario had me half an hour late to the scheduled 4PM time. But a friend kept me in the loop, and after twenty minutes past four, Stallman started the session by putting one of his public talks on. In all fairness, the talk is still relevant, and I would recommend watching it for a brief introduction to his overarching point.

Free software is the first battle in the liberation of cyberspace.

from the beginning of Stallman's Free software, free society talk at TEDxGeneva 2014

When I did finally arrive at the auditorium, it was packed with software engineering students (and some computer scientists as well); Stallman, sitting and mic'ed up to the speakers, freestyled about something that I cannot recall with certainty. But it doesn't matter much, because every so often the argument would circle back to a couple of key ideas: use free software; abstain from non-free software; don't fall prey into convenience over freedom.

There's a particular anecdote that, although transmitted in what would leave no doubt to be utmost seriousness, I could not avoid having a bit of a chuckle at. I do my best to reproduce; if not in exact wording, at least in the spirit of the idea.

One of these days I was very sad, and I thought about all those students that are forced to use non-free software in their classes.

(he is thinking, in case it is not clear, of tools like Zoom, and Google Meet).

This was very sad. If I were in that position, I would only say "I feel very sad that I am being forced to use non-free software", and refrain from any further comments. If this ever happens to you, feel free to proceed in this way.

Having no prior exposure to Stallman's style of rhethoric, I found him to be treading the fine line between deadpan sincerity and the driest of humor. But there be no doubt that he wholeheartedly means it, were this not the point he has raised for almost fifty years or so.

from Stallman's personal webpage; of course, I went for Spotify first.

Shortly after the amusing sad boy example, the floor was open to questions (in written form, as he finds best to comprehend them). Some were obvious given his public stances (no, Stallman doesn't use a smartphone), and some would, again, precariously balance between humor and complete miscommunication between inquirer and inquiree: his thoughts on piracy started with "it's very bad", followed by examples of real-life high-seas ship piracy endeavours whose length chiefly defied the concept of comedic timing; at last, he centered himself in the more relevant terms of free exchange of ideas and knowledge, DRM, copyright and etc. Other topics and technologies were briefly discussed, but unfortunately too superficially and one-sided to foster any debate, which was probably never the goal. The two drafts of questions I scribbled were kept; one I assumed to have a trivial answer, and the other could, maybe, provide such worthy a soundbyte to completely reframe Stallman as a technological reactionary. Maybe I'll email the latter, someday.

I am fastidious about what I do on the internet and how. The internet has become a disgusting system of tracking people and snooping on them.

from Stallman's personal webpage on computing

Stallman's message is not news. We know how and why Google operates as a profit-making business; how Meta pervades, via their umbrella of services, both our real and digital lives. In the span of a little more than a decade we collectively transitioned into surveillance capitalism, transformed our culture, and more is yet to come — it won't stop anytime soon, really, because, well, that's not how the world works. And of course we never had — as a society — enough time to reflect upon the impact of the internet (as, arguably, just so happens with any technological advances, like with AI as we speak).

There are quotidian episodes of overtly complex solutions to simple problems (social media as a substitute for human interaction), institutional decisions in contradiction with their own interests (a University having courses based on proprietary and paid software, instead of fostering the principles of free and open-source knowledge), careless and arguably dangerous practices of data handling (medical records exchanged back and forth through Whatsapp) or the rapid conceptual shifts around the notion of propriety (of which the Kindle 1984 fiasco is a deliciously ironic example). The examples are all-encompassing, because so too is the internet and technology in our lives; yet the stance of caution (if not of outright rejection) of this all can be taken as extremist, paranoid overreaction, or simply detached from the demands of the modern world — this latter seemingly consensual among a few atendees that I personally know.

I circle back to Stallman's relevance over the last fifty years. This period spans the widespread availability of both the personal computer in the seventies and the internet a couple of decades after; it just so happens that we are contemporaries of many highly influential people in the space. That should, if anything, lead us to believe that the current state of affairs is not set in stone; that we can, if (individually and collectivelly) willing, track back to saner, safer, and freer courses. I suppose this is my takeaway from his stance.

Now, let me share this to my Instagram followers.