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

121–130 of 376 posts

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

#121

Post by yvsong »

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"…

Users and Facebook use each other voluntarily, for their own gain. It's a normal business that anyone can choose to use or not. Both terms users and useds are ok to describe the 2 aspects of the business, and for arguing which aspect weighs more. Users use Facebook first, so overall users is the more proper term.

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

#122

Post by yuhong »

beagle3 wrote: post #71
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"…

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…

This reminds me of the "copy protect music" setting from WMP.

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

#123

Post by worik »

belorn wrote: post #119
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 were bringing up a interesting/intellectual point until you mention the word free. At that point, either you are pointing towards a tribe of thinking, or simply ignoring the massive amount of Philosophy that has been written around the concept of freedom and the many and large volume of thought that has been written about it. John Locke wrote 400 years ago a definition of freedom that fits what RMS says, and its…

It is not that freedom and liberty are interchangeable. It is that free and costless are interchangeable.

That is an ambiguity in English and not a big deal. We can borrow libre.

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

#124

Post by superobserver »

saynsedit wrote: post #118
superobserver wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your point? Pointing out a curated list of photos online does not point to any inconsistency with critizing Facebook. If it does, that is merely coincidental and does not speak to the intent behind my post.

Okay, what is the intent of your post?

What is the intent of yours? Are you not able to understand a simple interrogatory sentence? That seems unbelievable, given that you clearly know how to write them.

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

#125

Post by Arnavion »

Gorgor wrote: post #62
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 thin…

>But this is not the kind of terms Stallman uses.

https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/FAQ.html#windows_woe32

>What does Woe32 mean?

>“Woe32” denotes the Windows 32-bit operating systems for x86: Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista and Windows 95/98/ME. Microsoft uses the term “Win32” to denote these; this is a psychological trick in order to make everyone believe that these OSes are a “win” for the user. However, for most users and developers, they are a source of woes, which is why I call them “Woe32”.

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

#126

Post by Retric »

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"…

It's useful to have someone out the outer edge of a issue as a benchmark. At somepoint the person who compromises less wins.

Copy protection does not protect copy's it prevents them. Calling it protection is letting one side win before you start talking.

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

#127

Post by superobserver »

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"…

But that's what Facebook users are - useds. They're targets for Facebook's platform, namely, delivering ads. You've actually made a strawman of RMS' argument by attempting to draw the false parallel between ex1 and ex2.

The appropriate understanding of RMS' use of language is similar to how any philosopher might use language with idiosyncratic coinages thrown in. In other words, it is simply a manifestation of a particular philosophical outlook.

Edit: it would appear quite a few other responders to your post are making this point as well. I think you should seriously reconsider how you're attempting to characterise RMS' way of making a point.

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

#128

Post by saynsedit »

superobserver wrote: post #124
saynsedit wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, what is the intent of your post?

What is the intent of yours? Are you not able to understand a simple interrogatory sentence? That seems unbelievable, given that you clearly know how to write them.

Okay... So you just want to know why RMS has posted pictures online? How is that relevant to original post at all?

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

#129

Post by jordigh »

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"…

> Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

He did not "appropriate" the term free. FreeBSD and OpenBSD call what they do "free software" and they also call the gcc "free" and the phrase "free software" predates the Free Software Foundation.

He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he says "free". Unlike what most of his opponents seem to believe, he does not mean "copyleft only" when he says "free". He means the exact same thing as "open source", just like "global warming" means the same thing as "climate change". Same thing, different political slant.

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

#130

Post by type0 »

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"…

Yeah, "useds" doesn't sound grammatically correct. The most annoying is when people ask: "do you have facebook?", the obvious answer should be: "you can not have facebook unless you're one of the shareholders, the facebook has you!"
Post reply on HN