Commenters debated Stallman’s 2001 claim that the deaths of thousands in 9/11 would enable governments to deprive millions of civil liberties. Many said he was essentially right about the growth of surveillance and the danger of centralized data, arguing that concentration of user records makes mass coercion far easier (aliasxneo) and that security-driven rules accumulate without rollback (basisword). Some noted Stallman couldn’t have foreseen later war deaths and secondary effects (iamnothere) or pointed to public-health consequences tied to intervention (zardo, boxed). Others urged clarity about what Stallman actually said rather than treating him as an alarmist (GMoromisato, echelon_musk).
Opinion split sharply over Stallman’s persona and related conspiracy talk. Several commenters called him deeply unpleasant or problematic yet conceded he’d been prescient on certain issues (zrail, sroerick, blagie), while others argued his conduct can’t be excused by neurodiversity (EA-3167, F3nd0). A separate fault line emerged around Epstein and QAnon-style narratives: some claimed Epstein’s networks were long known and later revealed in fuller detail (ParentiSoundSys), while others rejected lurid theories as baseless (xlayn, Avshalom sparking rebuttals). Debates about political labels, moral reasoning, and how to weigh warnings from controversial figures underscored the division.
Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.