Wow, the only thing missing to complete Stallman's persona is a fedora and a Guy Fawkes mask.
Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
151–160 of 376 posts
Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
#152If 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"…
>that makes me think that they think I'm an idiot and that they think they can actually manipulate me with such silliness.
So "Brexit" was made up just to manipulate British people? That's how language evolves, isn't it? New words get coined, some of them stick and stay, some go away. "Dumbocrat" won't stay for long because it carries nothing but insult.
Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 whe…
You can hate the argument all you like; although such an emotionally charged term being levelled against the argument itself is curious but probably not particularly informative. It also doesn't change the way Facebook violates norms of privacy in a number of ways that should give people pause for thought, at any rate. RMS has put forward excellent reasons that detract from the use of the platform.
Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
#154If 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 m…
Why do you consider RMS to be your enemy?
Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
By that reasoning, "Democrap" is a signifier for an exclusionary (and thus anti-democratic) line of thought.
Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
#156If 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"…
Are you trying to say that RMS is an irrational zealot? I agree with you wholeheartedly! But he changed the world with persistent application of irrational and at times childish zeal. Many would say the change was for the better. The problem IMO is not that he uses dishonest rhetorical devices but that his recent proclamations sound old and boring and failing to confer sufficient emotional charge to the reader.
Appealing to emotion is such a poor rhetorical device.
Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
#157If 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],…
I'm afraid this won't help, considering current progress in AI [1]. Facebook will soon be able to match your HN (and every other) account with your FB account just by the words you write.
[1] http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2016/6/23/ai-apple-and-go...
Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
#158If 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],…
Seems like an awful lot of bother to go through for so little benefit.
Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
#159I'll bet Zuckerberg and countless Facebook employees have used software written by Stallman.
At the risk of being wrong, I'd even go so far as to say they need this software.
But does Stallman ever need to use software written by Zuckerberg or Facebook employees?
Personalities and errors in judgment aside, give respect and credit where it is due.
I have never needed Facebook's software. And I doubt I ever will.
From a purely utilitarian viewpoint, my gratitude goes to Stallman and the people who brought us the internet. I'm not sure what I could thank Facebook for.
If Zuckerberg had failed to be in the right place at the right time, there would always be a substitute.
But if there was no Stallman back in the 70's and 80's, would we still have gcc, gdb and so much free, open source software?
Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
#160Previous discussions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6816072
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201644