Out of all the rationales for malice out there, hypocrisy is among the weakest. Because a person/corporation did bad thing A does not silence them when speaking out against unrelated bad thing B. Compounding this with guilt-by-association -- of Red Hat bearing the weight of all IBM's past (and very real) sins -- makes such accusations even weaker.
SUSE also withdrew their FSF funding. Anyone care to draw a link between that and the fact that its HQ is in Nuremberg? And what dirt are we going to dig up about the Electronic Frontier Foundation, whose position on the FSF is well more extreme than Red Hat's?
In any case, let's remember that the actions taken are against the FSF, not Stallman himself who has not been muzzled at all (last I checked his blog is unaffected by all the commotion). It is the FSF that is being rightfully being punished for bringing him back to leadership when what is needed is diplomacy and allies, and there are so many good software freedom advocates out there who are not divisive assholes. It is telling that the loudest voices against the FSF are those who have actually interacted with Stallman (including those who have shared his ideology for decades), while most of his defenders have never met him.
Maybe RMS spoke out against surveillance capitalism. So what? Who cares? He's spoken about a bunch of stuff unrelated to what he's best known for, which is trying to re-invent Unix and promoting software freedom. He's a seminal speaker on those two issues, but far from expert in the others. Indeed, it's largely regarding his stances on issues far removed from software freedom that RMS finds himself banished from MIT and in this current mess.
As for me, when I think of people I want to follow on the issue of corporate surveillance, there are many better versed and articulate commentators on the issue than Stallman. Zuboff.
Snowden.
Braxman. Orwell! Many others. Indeed, it's good that these others are not funded by orgs involved in surveillance (or even supposed countermeasures such as VPNs) because that would clearly suggest conflicts of interest.
Sure, IBM's interests and agendas are suspect. Ditto Microsoft, Oracle and many others. But these days I prefer vigilance and skepticism over conspiratorial thinking.
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch / @el56