There's a difference between organic and forced diversity.
When someone starts out with bullet-point one devoted to orthogonal social issues and not the actual goals of the foundation and how to reach them, it's fairly clear where they stand.
When someone starts out with bullet-point one devoted to orthogonal social issues and not the actual goals of the foundation and how to reach them, it's fairly clear where they stand.
The author contends that Stallman (and through his leadership, the FSF) ends up repelling the very kind of interconnected community that could sustain the free software movement. Thus, their first suggestion (replace Stallman, and include different kinds of people in future leadership) is directly related to that specific issue.
It's actually a rather nicely written piece, and they support their suggestions in the narrative pretty well. Perhaps you skipped ahead (or perhaps you just disagree, which is certainly your right), but they absolutely didn't "start out" with "orthogonal social issues". They made the case for why those issues matter and then connected them to their suggestions.
Like, cops using secret rules to determine guilt would be considered dystopian basically anywhere.
If you want to have a talk about the also completely unrelated issue of facial recognition, we can do that too.
The way that you get the average user to care about software freedom is by drawing lines between it and seemingly unrelated issues. You don't say "proprietary software means you can't edit the code", you say "proprietary software means more surveillance tech everywhere". And the way that surveillance tech works is that it follows a very specific "shitty technology adoption curve"[0]. It will first be weaponized against socially acceptable targets such as criminals first, and then to social minorities that don't have the leverage to say 'no', and then to poor people at large, and so on and so forth up the chain of oppression.
Of course, because of how this adoption curve works, a foundation staffed entirely with old white guys isn't going to be inherently aware of these sorts of problems. They are going to be fighting them by accident, and losing out on a way to do effective outreach about the problem they want to solve.
[0] Thanks to Cory Doctorow for pointing this one out.
Black people have darker faces with generally softer features, women paint themselves with makeup and frequently leave the house looking less like themselves than other people.
The sorts of solutions that a prescribed - more diversity - do nothing to fix those issues.
Multi-perspective and multi-frame processing can be used to reconstruct 3D models of a well-lit individual, which has the potential to get around makeup induced false contouring.
Solving the issues of clowns and women - but how do you deal people who are genetically predisposed to being poorly lit?
Infrared's probably your best option, and it's already common place in security.
There are multiple factors that lead to the software not working - and none of them stem from the fact that it's proprietary.
(The Stallman notion that anything other than copyleft needs to be erased is fucking ridiculous - and I really don't think that you'll find traction with it on a site where almost everyone uses the profits from software to feed themselves and their families.)
There is a related notion that would have granted you some traction - that tax payer funded software should be open source.
This nicely parallels the issue of public access to publicly funded scientific research - which has gotten a lot of traction here, over time.
As far as rising authoritarianism is concerned, you've chosen a weird hill to die on.
The court is packed, and the already broken two party system is being gerrymandered into oblivion.
You're focusing on the tools being used without regard for the intention and the users.
Anyway, you didn't even get to the fun part of the conversation - that facial recognition struggles with black people and women.
Which is a fun little conversation that people like to politicise and blame on the people who wrote the code.
Only if you begin by presuming diversity isn't a benefit on it's own.