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

141–150 of 376 posts

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

#141

Post by aninhumer »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #85
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"…

He refuses to use the commonly established language which distorts reality. It is a radical choice (given how well established the manipulative language is). I can see how some may find this irritating. You may want to take a look at this lecture to see why language is so important and influential. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM

Some of his substitutions are arguably valuable rhetorical devices, but the majority are just childish digs which don't add anything because they're far more distracting than they are challenging.

Every time I run into one of his idiosyncratic terms, it interrupts my train of thought, and dislodges any argument he had been constructing there.

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

#142

Post by nikcub »

curiousgal wrote: post #139
nikcub wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two family members and one friend who are school teachers. All use fake names[0] on Facebook because they don't want to be harrassed by parents or students online. Apparently, it is very common (both the harassment and teachers using aliases) [0] Usually a real first name with an altered/shortened surname

Well in fairness Facebook doesn't allow for much harassment. Messages from people outside your friendlist get routed to an other inbox and you can stop people from adding you or even finding you via searches, Not to mention blocking. So yeah, in the extent of stating safe from harassment using a pseudoname is overboard.

It's not just harrasement in that sense, but also that you don't want to be bothered. With some parents, if they find you have a Facebook profile, they'll expect to be added. Once you are added, they'll expect you respond to private messages, etc.

I've heard some horror stories about helicopter parents and how they deal with teachers online

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

#143

Post by ovt »

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…

Lakoff and framing seemed to be in the air around 2003 or 2004, and it was a very good development.

And then everyone forgot it, or maybe were encouraged to forget it.

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

#144

Post by morgante »

simbalion wrote: post #81

Stallman is my hero. All social media is terrible, and all of it is impossible to profit from, and I bet all of it will eventually fail. Facebook doesn't make any money from social media, they make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their social media platform. Anyone who is interested in social blogging should have their own website (wordpress.com is free) with RSS support so people who like what you wr…

> Facebook doesn't make any money from social media, they make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their social media platform.

Newspapers never made money, they just made money from side businesses that were tacked onto their social media platform.

TV shows don't make money, they just make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their shows.

Just because you don't like a business model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Advertising has been a successful business model for literally centuries.

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

#145

Post by saynsedit »

edanm wrote: post #133
saynsedit wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That wasn't the argument OP was making. He was making a (legitimate, IMO) objection to RMS' rhetorical style, and saying that it makes many people not want to read his writing. OP never said that this makes FB blameless.

If the OP doesn't intend to defend Facebook against RMS's claims, his criticism of RMS's rhetorical style is wholly irrelevant to his core point and, in turn, this discussion.

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

#146

Post by sukilot »

c_c_c wrote: post #63
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.

If your thesis is that Democrats are bad people, Democrap is an accurate term.

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

#147

Post by [deleted] »

superobserver wrote: post #137
Udik wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're also users. Or, you could use the same inversion for about everything: we're not buying cars for getting around, it's the automotive industries that lure us into giving them money with stuff that can be used for travelling. We're not consumers of potatoes, it's the potatoes that use us to reproduce themselves. Facebook is, apparently, satisfying some needs. Users pay for it by giving a share of their attentio…

You're only emphasising the legitimate use of "useds" by RMS. The notion, in any case, is that being a used of Facebook undermine's one's claim to privacy. Potatoes and cars don't apparently do the same thing, so they qualify as red herrings at best - having no relationship or bearing on the larger claims RMS puts forward. C'mon. It's no secret that Facebook doesn't give much concern to users/useds privacy. Any claim…

[deleted]

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

#148

Post by Sylos »

gjkood wrote: post #57

I wonder if even highly computer literate users can grasp the scale of overt and covert information leakage that takes place when we connect a machine to an always on internet connection. Now with the advent of IoT and other always listening voice activated services the scale of this leakage is only growing bigger. The typical computer or phone user is ready and willing to give up their privacy to get a small discoun…

> I wonder if even highly computer literate users can grasp the scale of overt and covert information leakage that takes place when we connect a machine to an always on internet connection.

Nah, not a chance. I mean, maybe if you're running a lightweight Linux distro and don't ever open a browser, then you might be able to grasp it, but what your average consumer device and your average webpages send out, should be well beyond what can be understood by any single human.

That is not least also caused by the fact that at this point, data does not have an expiration date. For all we know, someone might be able to get data about your sleeping schedule in 500 years, still, or I don't know, jail your great-grandson when Hitler then finally does make a return, because you once talked to a Jewish girl.

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

#149

Post by cortesoft »

superobserver wrote: post #127
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 part…

I really hate this argument. Sure, everyone knows that Facebook makes money by selling advertisers access to targeted users. However, it isn't like users aren't getting something in return for this. Users of facebook aren't 'useds', they are participants in a transaction. They are given a service they enjoy, and in return they grant their eyeballs for ads, and their data for targeting those ads.

Now, we can argue whether users are aware of what they are trading, or if the trade is fair, but I think most people have a pretty good idea of how Facebook is making money.

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

#150

Post by lockes5hadow »

Sami_Lehtinen wrote: post #73

How about using GNU Social instead of Facebook. https://gnu.io/social/

I'd love to, but after I click the link, I get another link to "try" it. Clicking this link still gives me no joy, as now I need to find a server or something? Ok, lets see if there is one for my country, USA. Nothing on the popular list. Guess I should try the complete list. Oh look, no way to search. No suggestions on what I should be doing.

Whatever, I could spend my time and energy figuring the rest of it out, but there is no way I am going to convince my girlfriend this is a good idea.

Post reply on HN