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

101–110 of 376 posts

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

#101

Post by programmarchy »

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"…

Your entire post consists of red herrings / ad hom, and you failed to make a single argument or counter any of the points he made in the article.

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

#102

Post by kerkeslager »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #79
beagle3 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not use "democrap" or "republicant", as they do not promote the discussion or understanding in any way. However, I did adopt Stallman's "Copy Restriction" (instead of "Copy Protection") and "Digital Restriction Management" (instead of "Digital Right Management") - because they are a much better description of what the concept actually is for 99% of the people. I started doing this after I told someone that I wil…

I think you'll enjoy this lecture by linguistics professor George Lakoff: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM Among other things he speaks of the think-tank-driven concerted effort to influence political support by using language invoking specific metaphors to frame important issues. Like "Tax Relief" for dramatically reducing taxes for the rich etc. Changed how I process political speech and pretty much any med…

In the same vein, Orwell's Politics and the English Language[1] is an earlier observation of similar phenomena.

[1] https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

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

#103

Post by ajkjk »

chillwaves wrote: post #97
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"…

So you only support the newspeak that supports your point of view? How do you feel about terms like "collateral damage" that used to be "murdered civilians" in war? Secondly there is internal logic to "used" that is not present in the name calling you compare it to. False equivalency does not strengthen your argument.

I don't think the OP said anything about supporting other kinds of newspeak.

I don't think the OP said anything that seemed falsely equivalent. Constantly saying "used" instead of "user" is clearly similar to saying "Democrap" in at least one obvious way: that you're childishly substituting a replacement for a common word in an attempt to be clever and subversive, while alienating anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Their point was very clear and it seems like you're misinterpreting it on purpose, as though you have your hands over your ears.

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

#104

Post by saynsedit »

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"…

Yes yes, let's focus on the superficial components of his arguments via false equivalences and ignore the very legitimate criticisms he makes.

RMS argues like an idiot therefore Facebook is probably blameless. Progress.

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

#105

Post by wmccullough »

chillwaves wrote: post #97
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"…

So you only support the newspeak that supports your point of view? How do you feel about terms like "collateral damage" that used to be "murdered civilians" in war? Secondly there is internal logic to "used" that is not present in the name calling you compare it to. False equivalency does not strengthen your argument.

Right now, you're undermining his point by drawing an example from something he clearly didn't even talk about (i.e. Your example not his). Whether you love or hate Stallman, OP has made a valid point here. You can't expect to capture the hearts and minds of a prospective audience by alienating them intellectually. If I had no idea who Stallman was, and I read this, I wouldn't even consider taking it seriously. It comes off like a spoiled child who's just angsty enough to "fight the power".

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

#106

Post by loktarogar »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #48
oldmanjay wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The point is well understood and so poorly expressed that is actually repellent. It's not the "somebody" so much as the way "somebody" insists on using transparently manipulative rhetoric. It's very off-putting even to those of us who agree.

Sometimes off-putting is what your need. They don't put unicorns kindly asking you to quit on cigarette packs. There they put lung cancer pics. Stallman's points are digital equivalent of cancer pics. "Quit or you'll see more, every day". And no, I'm not 100% sure that works. Regulations surely do, tho.

To use your analogy, it's not the lung cancer pictures that are putting people off, it's the fact that in this case someone put a exaggerated cartoon picture of lung cancer, and while they know that the cancer is a real thing they can't take seriously the exaggerated imagery. It's not the message, it's the way the message is conveyed

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

#107

Post by saynsedit »

daveguy wrote: post #60
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…

> How do we solve the need while addressing these issues? I always hoped that something like diaspora[0] would take off. With blockchain technologies and ipfs style distributed filesystems it might be possible without any central organization. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)

There's also GNU social. It's a decentralized (a la email/XMPP) social network. Distributed technology is not there yet but decentralized gets us pretty far.

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

#108

Post by [deleted] »

nikcub wrote: post #72

If you want to run Facebook but want to be privacy conscious (any more suggestions? - this is what I do): 1. Create a separate browser profile for accessing Facebook 2. Run uBlock Origin 3. Don't install the mobile apps - use the mobile web interface 4. Turn your Facebook privacy settings up to 11 (the new max privacy settings are actually good/reasonable) - you can set it up so that you can't be found in search[0],…

[deleted]

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

#109

Post by bunderbunder »

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"…

What strikes me here in particular is that this article is mirroring most of my own reasons for being uncomfortable with Facebook, but I still find myself wanting to disagree with him. The rhetorical style makes him come across as a bully, and on a gut level I don't like to side with bullies.

So I'd like to say that after some more measured, thoughtful reflection I come around to his side.

But I don't. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, and even after taking a few breaths and trying to read it more calmly, his hyper-paternalistic posture still gets to me. I read his writings, and I don't ever see a glimmer of an attempt to empathize with the people he's ostensibly standing up for. Instead, it seems to me that he's only thinking about his own feelings on the subject, and assuming that everyone else either (A) thinks about it exactly the same way he does, or (B) doesn't know from beans and needs to be browbeaten into realizing it.

It's a wonder he doesn't use the word "sheeple" more often.

Post reply on HN