Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 376 posts

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#61

Post by nikcub »

thex10 wrote: post #33

One point from the article I found most interesting: > Pages that contain Facebook "like" buttons enable Facebook to track visitors to those pages. Facebook tracks Internet users that see "like" buttons, even users who never visited facebook.com and never click on those buttons. > The ACLU has a way of enabling users to click a Facebook "like" button, which avoids this problem. Its pages have a link called "like us o…

The term for them is two-click like buttons, or privacy friendly like buttons. There are a number of implementations[0][1][2]

Note that Facebook doesn't like having the loading or function of their like button altered (they want the third-party page loads for targetting)[3]

Note also that some of the share button widgets that aggregate the different social networks into one widget (like AddThis and ShareThis) pitch themselves are more privacy friendly but they are much worse - they will track and target you and sell your data to every network they can.

They also use (or used) evercookie techniques such as canvas fingerprinting or cache-based fingerprinting for persistent and privacy-setting resistant tracking[4].

[0] https://github.com/JonathanMH/privacy-friendly-facebook

[1] http://www.h-online.com/features/Two-clicks-for-more-privacy...

[2] https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy

[3] http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=...

[4] https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/libraries-are-...

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#62

Post by Gorgor »

mwfunk wrote: post #34

If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…

Democrap and the like are simply derogatory terms. And so are abbreviations like M$ for Microsoft or the German term Windoof (could be translated as Windumb) for Windows. But this is not the kind of terms Stallman uses.

Instead, he usually tells you why he uses a specific term and I have yet to come across a case where he doesn't have a point with his term. Microsoft can be regarded as „Malware“, because it does things you do not expect and may not want it to do (like spy on you). Facebook users can be regarded as used, even though I don't think there is any point in denying that they themselves use Facebook, as well. I'm not educated enough to talk about DRM, but it seems he has a point in calling it Digital Restrictions Management, too.

If I'm not mistaken, Stallman now actually prefers the term libre to the term free, because it is less ambiguous. Or he sees the value in it; I don't recall it exactly.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#63

Post by c_c_c »

mwfunk wrote: post #34

If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…

Not going to comment on the efficacy of "used" versus "user" in RMS' argument here. However, your comparison to "Democrap", etc. doesn't seem to fit here very well. The former is a shorthand for his entire argument and technically correct. Facebook "users" are "used" by Facebook. This is their business model. The latter is just simple name calling serving no useful purpose.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#64

Post by drdaeman »

mwfunk wrote: post #34

If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…

You have a point, but I believe warping the language from the norms can be different.

I can't know what Stallman meant exactly and what are his intentions, but from reading the text I believe what he tries to do is to either create a neologism (cf. "enforce a meme"), or avoid a word misuse that may lead to some invalid connotations or suggestions (cf. calling a photocopier "xerox"). Probably both, but the latter case is important.

There are a lot of cases where saying an established term for something (with term invented and enforced by marketing/politics) serves in favor of some an agenda, and one may deliberately decide to change the language to combat this. Consider that Stallman's also known to ask to avoid calling copyright infringement as "theft" or "piracy".

Avoiding agendas, almost certainly not the case with "democra[tp]s", as it's just name-calling. Most likely it's the case with "piracy", as using this term mixes in some incorrect allusions. And, while personally I think "useds" instead of "users" isn't a good idea, it's probably somewhere in the gray area in the middle that may have some reasonable justification besides just Stallman trying to pull a strawmen.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#65

Post by ams6110 »

dlnovell wrote: post #32

Recently my girlfriend discovered the depth of the program FB started to listen to the microphone, even if the app isn't on. She never installed the FB app on her new phone. Multiple times in the last month, some VERY specific topic of conversation IRL has shown up as an ad in her FB stream. Most recently, a coworker told her about a "Custom Martin" guitar he had just bought. Later that day there was an ad for a cust…

There's a less nefarious explanation (not that I wouldn't put it past Facebook to eavesdrop on the microphone). Her coworker searched or posted about his new "Custom Martin" and this triggered Facebook to show the ads to people he knows.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#66

Post by geff82 »

mwfunk wrote: post #34

If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…

RMS, to some extend, is like the pope. He often says strange things, where many people do not instantly agree. But he won't change his message just to please you, which is what we are used to get from most people, especially politicians. You can count on him and his, at heart, very humanist views. I recently was at one of his keynotes, and we all, including me, could only laugh at his over-and-over usage of words like "the Amazon Swindle" or Service-as-a-Software-Substitute (for SaaS). The "problem" with him, while he sometimes sound ridiculous, he makes me think and sense stuff I otherwise wouldn't have a critical look at. I'd say he does good (to the world) - while not caring if his recipe tastes well.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#67

Post by gjdimitrov »

capote wrote: post #55
gjdimitrov wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I agree with a lot of what he's saying, every time I listen to him I can't help but hear the judgemental note. He takes his inherently good ideas to the extreme and they become more off-putting than eye-opening

You're right, of course, but my point stands.

May be it was a poor choice of words on my side, what I was trying to get across here is that when one reads (or listens to) what he has to say, it feels more like a rebuke than a well constructed and convincing argument (even if it's the absolute truth).

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#68

Post by MaysonL »

vonklaus wrote: post #17
fwr wrote: post #7

I couldn't help but cringe every time the word "used" was used for "user" after the first occurence.

He's not wrong. edit: Per emsy's suggestion: I mean that he is just articulating that if something is free, you are the product , except he(stallman) articulates it by changing the noun to reflect his viewpoint. also, I just deleted facebook.

if something is free, you are the product

Does that hold true for useds of Gnu, also?

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#69

Post by [deleted] »

mwfunk wrote: post #34

If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…

[deleted]

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#70

Post by rhaps0dy »

george_ciobanu wrote: post #41

Brexit for Facebook - really? Is that all we learned from this recent referendum? Yes, it is weird to have this much personal information about so many people in the world in the hands of a corporation. But Facebook serves a real need - to connect. And they do it well. The problem is real - we need to have a non-commercial entity run this. But if Facebook dies tomorrow another company will take its place. How do we s…

Where in the article is "Brexit for Facebook", or anything similar? I don't understand your comment, please clarify.
Post reply on HN