words directly affect thought. while some substitutions can be overkill, it can still help the reader better perceive the precise thought the writer wants.

this idea is at the core of books like 1984, for example.

I feel like that guy has a public attraction ceiling. He's better doing himself.

If you believe that the major danger of Facebook is that it allows people to easily be manipulated, then sugar coating your true meaning to be more appealing may just be counter to your purpose.

I think RMS would disagree with you. He considers his cause to have been successful beyond his wildest dreams. Reading his biography paints a stark picture of a tech landscape being increasingly dominated by corporate interests.

His organization offered another way. He never thought it would get off the ground, but it turned out that corporations are desperate to save a buck and are more than willing to work with free software in order to do it. The GPL was the first keystone, his advocacy helped to popularize it.

His choice of appealing to nerds like him was perfect, and his kook persona where he doesn't bother trying to button up his rougher edges is far more convincing than any amount of sanitizing ever would be.

More to the point, Stallman is insanely smart, and is more accomplished than probably anybody posting on HN, including even pg. He didn't stop being smart just because he became notable.

You're not wrong, but neither is rms. The little boy pointing out that the emperor's new clothes are non-existent is no less right for breaking social mores, but is rather less likely to actually be paid attention to.

There's no chance that you (nor I) will ever have as much serious effect on the world as RMS.