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

221–230 of 376 posts

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

#221

Post by jonathankoren »

Gorgor wrote: post #187
Arnavion wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But this is not the kind of terms Stallman uses. https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/FAQ.html#windows_woe32 >What does Woe32 mean? >“Woe32” denotes the Windows 32-bit operating systems for x86: Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista and Windows 95/98/ME. Microsoft uses the term “Win32” to denote these; this is a psychological trick in order to make everyone believe that these OSes are a “win” for the user. However, for most user…

Good find. I didn't know about that one.

Infamously MS Windows bindings for emacs are are prefaced "w32-" instead of the standard "win32-" because RMS decreed "Windows is not a 'winning' platform."

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

#222

Post by kstrauser »

jordigh wrote: post #129
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"…

> Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty. He did not "appropriate" the term free. FreeBSD and OpenBSD call what they do "free software" and they also call the gcc "free" and the phrase "free software" predates the Free Software Foundation. He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he…

> He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he says "free". Unlike what most of his opponents seem to believe, he does not mean "copyleft only" when he says "free". He means the exact same thing as "open source", just like "global warming" means the same thing as "climate change". Same thing, different political slant.

That's not remotely true. When RMS says "free", he means "copyleft". Open Source means merely that interested parties can look at the source but does not imply rights to alter and redistribute. It derives from precedents like the Open Software Foundation (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation) which was open-as-in-specified, certainly not open-as-in-GPL.

Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

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

#223

Post by dllthomas »

kstrauser wrote: post #222
jordigh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty. He did not "appropriate" the term free. FreeBSD and OpenBSD call what they do "free software" and they also call the gcc "free" and the phrase "free software" predates the Free Software Foundation. He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he…

> He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he says "free". Unlike what most of his opponents seem to believe, he does not mean "copyleft only" when he says "free". He means the exact same thing as "open source", just like "global warming" means the same thing as "climate change". Same thing, different political slant. That's not remotely true. When RMS says "free", he means "copyleft".…

You seem confused about the definition of copyleft.

When something licensed to me under, say, the BSD 2-clause license, I have the ability to look at the source, to alter it, and to redistribute it (with or without modification). It is not copyleft, because it does not require that derived works be released under a comparable license.

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

#224

Post by STRML »

dlnovell wrote: post #32

Recently my girlfriend discovered the depth of the program FB started to listen to the microphone, even if the app isn't on. She never installed the FB app on her new phone. Multiple times in the last month, some VERY specific topic of conversation IRL has shown up as an ad in her FB stream. Most recently, a coworker told her about a "Custom Martin" guitar he had just bought. Later that day there was an ad for a cust…

I don't really believe they're doing this, or at least I haven't seen any evidence that they are. I suppose it is possible, just like some apps (Alexa, Siri, Google, Cortana) listen for keywords to start input.

FWIW, the DTEK app on the Blackberry Priv tracks permissions usages. My FB app has never accessed the microphone, but it does track my location every 7 minutes. Still creepy.

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

#225

Post by kartickv »

nsgi wrote: post #214
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…

Still don't understand the problem with the terms in your second paragraph. Copy protection protects CDs from being copied. Digital rights management manages the rights of the IP owner. These are just as valid. Then you have claiming Win32 is a subliminal message about winning rather than an abbreviation for Windows...

Copy protection doesn't protect the customer, nor does digital rights management help manage their rights. They are not benefits for the customer, only negatives.

When my bank charges me a fee, they call it a fee, not a bonus, though it's the latter from their point of view.

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

#226

Post by ppopoff »

nsgi wrote: post #214
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…

Still don't understand the problem with the terms in your second paragraph. Copy protection protects CDs from being copied. Digital rights management manages the rights of the IP owner. These are just as valid. Then you have claiming Win32 is a subliminal message about winning rather than an abbreviation for Windows...

I have mixed feelings about RMS's use of language, but I think you exactly illustrate beagle3's point. Perhaps they are just as valid, but if the contrasting term is just as valid and more in tune with your views, then you might object to the dominant term.

> Copy protection protects CDs from being copied.

The contention is of course with the word "protection." It implies that copying is a bad thing and that preventing copying is protection. It's a loaded word, even if in general use. Replacing with "restriction" challenges this this notion with a word loaded in the opposite direction.

> Digital rights management manages the rights of the IP owner.

The assumption here is that the restrictions on use are in fact "rights of the IP owner." There is no a priori reason that there should be. In fact IP rights are a part of law and public policy. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be; obviously Stallman and beagle3 disagree.

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

#227

Post by trungaczne »

programmarchy wrote: post #199
relaytheurgency wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think he dismissed the original argument ("Facebook is bad for you") at all, he's just commenting on the use of bad rhetoric and how it detracts from Stallman's goal of convincing people not to use Facebook.

I don't think everyone would listen to a person flinging insult, even if their argument has some basis. I wouldn't listen to a person who rely on bad rhetoric either.

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

#228

Post by ppopoff »

xiaoma wrote: post #188
vacri wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He's not trying to be the bridge. He is the standard bearer. In the 90s, others such as ESR and Linus were the bridges. Stallman has always been the idealist who will hold firm to his ideal. Back in the day, like you, I thought he was extreme and kind of silly. ESR had a far more socially acceptable and commercially palatable message (which is pretty shocking in retrospect, considering the direction his writing and p…

> Nearly 20 years later, it's clear that Stallman is almost certain to be a historical figure remembered hundreds of years from now.

Hyperbole much? He's not going to be forgotten, but... RMS is a hacker icon, but he's a bit obscure outside the community. RMS is legit hating on Facebook here but there's no Hollywood movie about RMS. Zuckerberg is a household name. I'll agree that RMS has done more net good thank Zuckerberg, but who is more likely to show up in a textbook a hundred years removed at this rate?

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

#229

Post by zardeh »

programmarchy wrote: post #101
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"…

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.

Yes and?

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

#230

Post by zardeh »

saynsedit wrote: post #145
edanm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not true. You can criticize that which you respect, in order to improve it.
Post reply on HN