Live data from Hacker News

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

stallman.org

161–170 of 376 posts

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

#161
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.

That much is obvious to anyone here, but I'm noticing an odd spate of downvotes that contradict that post. Any insights? I'm seeing at least 6 downvotes to my posts alone.

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

#162
post #71
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…

Maybe one day Stallman will agree to use "Liberating Software" instead of the more confusing name "Free Software".

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

In the spirit of ergodic literature, such as the use of extensive, awkward footnotes in Infinite Jest, some consider this to be a good and effective thing. If the reader isn't willing to put in the cognitive effort to constantly overcome this and extract the meaning of the overall argument, then that reader was probably just looking for some easy confirmation bias reason to disgree or criticize in the first place.

By constantly jarring you out of feeling comfortable while reading, it means that, if you are determined to read it seriously, you will have to exert more effort and by the end will likely have gotten much, much more out of it than if it had been designed to feel pleasant for the reader.

I actually love this style of writing and can't get enough of it. I also like the music of the band Swans and eat lots of meals with bitter foods (like huitlacoche, bitter melon, extremely earthy green tea). I don't know what it is, but I feel this kind of constant, just-on-the-cusp-of-being-too-unpleasant disruption for almost any sense qualia really leads me to appreciate things more, dig into them more deeply, retain more about them later on, and quickly separate things I do care about consuming from things I don't care about consuming.

It's kind of like putting up with the pain of a deep tissue massage to get the more satisfying muscular relaxation that comes later.

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

#165
post #62
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…

Back in the day, "MS-DOS" used to always be "MS-DOG" and you can still find references to that: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/MS... and as late as 2014 it was still there in emacs: http://osdir.com/ml/emacs-diffs-gnu/2014-08/msg00048.html

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

#166
post #66
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 lik…

The problem is that saying "Swindle" instead of "Kindle" works when he's talking to people who already agree with him, but is seen as adolescent crap by people who don't agree with or don't understand his message. It's preaching to the choir.

"Digital Restrictions Management" is a good semantic switcheroo, but "Swindle" is just name-calling. I've read his reasons for it, but really, it just makes it harder for people "outside the choir" to hear his message.

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

#167
I was a used a few months ago until I just quit. I enjoy trail running and time-permitting I try to do 5-7 races per year. This year I totally missed 2 races b/c I was not in the loop anymore. Organizers don't even have a website or newsletter anymore, just a FB page. Then I realized this is happening to businesses as well. They seem to ignore the fact that they are giving FB full control over its brand/audience.

Anyway, Stallman is right, again.

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's not what bunder said. 'enemy of my enemy is not my friend' just means that a common opponent means nothing for your relationship with another party.

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

#169
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. In the spirit of ergodic literature, such as the use of extensive, awkward footnotes in Infinite Jest, some consider this to be a good and effective thing. If the reader isn't willing to put in the cognitive effort to constantly overcome this and extract the meaning of…

I take it that you've never had to grade essays at a college level?

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

#170
post #71
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…

Thank you both for your well-written arguments. This is the sort of commentary I come to HN to read.
Post reply on HN