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

191–200 of 376 posts

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

#191

Post by Frondo »

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"…

Thanks for putting this all so eloquently.

I'd even go so far as to say, the fact that so much of us are talking about this rhetorical device (one I think is pretty childish and distracting) means he's missed the mark in writing a persuasive essay. A lot of us aren't talking about the merits of using Facebook vs not, because we're talking about that dumb neologism instead. Shakespeare, he is not.

Which is too bad, because a lot of his points are worth discussing--not necessarily agreeing with, but at least discussing. Like, what value are people getting in return from Facebook? Why are people OK giving away their content, exposing their eyeballs to ads, being tracked, etc.? Is it that they don't know? That they know but don't care, i.e. have different priorities in life?

What alternatives could there be to this service that so many people (even in the comments here) find value in using? Facebook is bad, rah rah, but people want to connect and it's there and it works. What would you ask people to do when we all shut down our facebook accounts?

All these questions are being lost because of "useds". That's too bad.

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

#192

Post by smegel »

As someone who has never used Facebook, I often feel like I am talking to members of some sinister cult when I meet someone who asks me about Facebook and I say I don't use it. The surprise and weird eyes they give me really unnerves me, it's not just a website to some people, it has become a integral part of their life and has seeped into their mind.

It has gotten to the point that I am deliberately rude about it, feigning complete ignorance and saying things like "what's that, one of those stupid social networks?" or "why would anyone want to use that?" -- in the hope I momentarily shock them out of their brainwashed state into a moment of clarity where they realize not everyone is a member of this virtual cult.

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

#193

Post by carapace »

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 downvoted this because you're criticizing Stallman's rhetoric (which I agree is not hot) but not addressing his points.

Given that he's not great at communication, but that you do seem to understand what he's trying to say, what do you think about Facebook?

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

#194

Post by Udik »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #178
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…

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 v…

I'm not saying that "used" is invalid per se, but rather that it is a perspective that is not justified simply by the fact that Facebook has an advantage from the user. I think your last question further clarifies the problem. Human beings are clearly used by viruses. Unless they use a virus to drive a gene into an organism. But sometimes things are harder to discern: are human beings users or useds of tobacco? Or of cats (* )?

In the end probably it all depends on a value judgement: who gets by far the most value out of the transaction? But then Stallman should just say plain and loud what he means: that Facebook is useless to the people that spend their time on it.

---

(*) as cats are clearly parasites hijacking the human nervous system.

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

#195

Post by oneplane »

There really is no point in using Facebook, other than get the stuff other people post on it because they are there. You don't use facebook because your friends aren't there and you don't use facebook because you 'like' it. It's the same with messaging systems, phones, civilization in general: you do it because enough people in your life are there and only there. If all the people I ever wanted to communicate with were outside the city on a farm or something like that, I'd move there. Or if they only use email and IRC, then I'd only need those. But the fact is that many groups are only adressable on one platform, some only on facebook, others only on whatsapp, and others only on IRC. Sure, there is overlap, but that doesn't mean dropping 30% of the people you know from digital communications, just because they use some evilCorp software doesn't work. Migrations do happen from time to time, for example, there used to be MySpace, and in The Netherlands, there was Hyves, and before those, there was MSN and email. All of them, except for email just slowly died, or the critical mass of people you want to communicate with are no longer there. For me, the 'critial mass' of people on Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat etc is never reached. So far, there are maybe 5 or 6 people that are on those systems that I might be remotely interested in, but it's not enough to actually act on. And just like Facebook, those are just 'as bad' (some are Facebook-owned of course). I've also had people move away from WhatsApp to Telegram, and from Telegram to some other messaging system. Still, it's no critical mass on Telegram for me to use it, just like Skype. Doesn't matter if they are 'good' or 'evil'.

So while having an opinion or knowing some service or knowing some company is evil, isolating yourself from the rest of the world (or just the friends and their preferred communications) isn't going to work, at least not for me. Making sure you don't put information there that you don't want to be there is about as good as it gets.

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

#196

Post by april1stislame »

js2 wrote: post #170
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…

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

And your comment is the kind nobody comes here to read...

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

#197

Post by [deleted] »

aninhumer wrote: post #141
andrei_says_ wrote: post #85

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.

[deleted]

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

#198

Post by llamaz »

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 literally do not possess

you don't seem to understand what the word literally means, and are appropriating it to further your own intellectual dishonesty. "Literally" has such an intuitive meaning and I find that your violent disinclination to conform to the norms of positive contributers to society to be deeply frustrating.

> It's not like an isolated incident, it is literally his primary rhetorical device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades.

This is just hyperbole. You might have some legitimate arguments hidden in your vitriolic strawman-riddled banter, but as is, you are alienating the readers of your comments. In future, please try give your arguments a fighting chance, and not place a rod into the front wheel of your moving bicycle.

(Point of my post: I think you're nitpicking on something insignificant and dismissing the entire argument based on that.)

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

#199

Post by programmarchy »

relaytheurgency wrote: post #181
programmarchy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is disagreeing with the style of someone's rhetoric really the same as an attack on the person? The parent comment is making the point that Stallman uses exclusionary tactics while speaking and that they are a turn off if you aren't already a convert. I think it's a cogent point and I think it applies in a more general sense to a lot of lazy techniques employed by those who seek to be divisive.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
Post reply on HN