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

171–180 of 376 posts

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

#171

Post by dunkelheit »

rhizome wrote: post #156
dunkelheit wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depends on how crudely it is done. I'd argue that all great speeches and manifests are great precisely because their message resonated powerfully with emotions of the audience.

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

#172

Post by rwallace »

sukilot wrote: post #146
c_c_c wrote: post #63

Earlier 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.

Even if that's your thesis, it's still a bad term because it doesn't say anything about why. If you're going to use an atypical term in a debate, it should convey some information about why you hold your beliefs.

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

#173

Post by vacri »

lockes5hadow wrote: post #150
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, bu…

This is why Slack is taking the world by storm - the chat window isn't all that good (in my opinion), but the onboarding process is buttery-smooth and completely frictionless.

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

#174

Post by waterhouse »

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…

Arguably, the terms "copy protection", "digital rights management", "intellectual property", and probably a lot more that aren't on the top of my head are the result of, to quote the GP, "warping the very language they use to support their point"; but the groups in favor of these things were there first, and so they got to define the terminology that we've all ended up with.

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

#176

Post by igravious »

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…

Thank you for this link. More and more I am appreciating this guy's research. Have never seen him speak, what a natural speaker, very enjoyable as well as edifying.

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

#177

Post by relaytheurgency »

yuhong wrote: post #120
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"…

How about "undemocratic party" for the Democratic party?

It's childish. I don't understand why people try to do this. The organization is called the Democratic party. It is not clever to change the name as some kind of shorthand for your own personal opinion.

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

#178

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

Udik wrote: post #132
superobserver wrote: post #127

Earlier 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…

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…

I think you are validating RMS' approach without realizing it. Take the perspective that potatoes use us to reproduces themselves: Viewing things from that perspective is actually a useful device for explaining and understanding biological evolution. Just because it's an unusual perspective, does not mean that it's therefore invalid or useless or even just a bad idea. Also, to take the analogy further, bacteria and viruses do the same in some way.

Now, and interesting question to ask is: Is facebook a potato or a virus?

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

#179

Post by School-Cotton »

chflags wrote: post #159

I'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…

Nobody needs GNU software; they can use FreeBSD which is just as good. They can also use clang and lldb instead of gcc and gdb.

You can debate about whether those would have existed in their present form without the leadership of the FSF, but then you'd be making a different argument.

By the way, I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that Stallman brought us the Internet but I can't see how that could possibly be true.

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

#180

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

oldmanjay wrote: post #47
guard-of-terra wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're understanding the grave seriousness of the considerations, but still waiting for somebody different to convey that to you?

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.

Except that when it's in-your-face transparent, it cannot really be manipulative.

What actually is manipulative is how the common use of words is being influenced by think tanks, marketing companies and the like so that you actually feel repelled when RMS uses language in a way that is in fact more objectively descriptive of reality because it deviates from the norm that has been established.

Post reply on HN