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

281–290 of 376 posts

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

#281

Post by chflags »

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"…

Stallman's writing is reminiscent of The Jargon File or FOLDOC. There are many "silly" terms like the ones you mention in those collections. (More on textfiles.com.) Stallman was a part of that era. Maybe he's just an original 1970's "hacker" trying to stay true to his ideals. They liked to create their own counter culture vocabulary.

Then you have Zuckerberg who puts some blurb in Facebook's first SEC filings that his website^W company will follow the "hacker" ethos. What was he doing there, using that term? He sure has a lot of corporate sponsorship for a "hacker".

Imagine Stallman and Zuckerberg in a certain American game show that ran for several decades. Hint: The game's title relates to honesty.

"Will the real 'hacker' please stand up?"

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

#282

Post by ppopoff »

Teever wrote: post #273
pyre wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's just a business that executed an existing concept very well So is McDonald's, but I somehow think that they've managed to embed themselves into the culture/society enough that they won't soon be forgotten should they ever fall.

So what can you tell me about the founders or CEOs of McDonalds?

Seriously? How about the McDonalds, and Ray Kroc? Never heard of those names?

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

#283

Post by beedogs »

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"…

History has proven Stallman right about most things, time and time again.

He's right about this, too.

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

#284

Post by [deleted] »

bunderbunder wrote: post #109
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"…

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…

[deleted]

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

#285

Post by ktRolster »

cbHXBY1D wrote: post #207
igravious wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Never meet your heroes. I was a big fan of his work before taking a class with him. He's the rockstar of the cogsci department at Berkeley but he's known as a massive ego and a poor professor.

He's the rockstar of the cogsci department at Berkeley but he's known as a massive ego and a poor professor.

I don't want to be harsh here, but it might be worth for you to consider that you were also a poor student.

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

#287

Post by avindroth »

pyre wrote: post #264
avindroth wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are instances where people use wordplay to gain an emotional/rhetorical advantage in a debate. For the seasoned, this might be irksome at best, but I agree, repeatedly hearing "Dumbocrat" can get old and I, for one, will quickly lose respect for that person. But comparing Stallman's use of the word "used" to conventional, quite childish wordplay seems like a very, very far stretch. Stallman is redefining those…

A junkie is a drug user , but they are being used by the criminal infrastructure providing those illicit substances. To say that they are not a user because they are being used via their usage is just nitpicking. Facebook users are using Facebook and gaining utility through it, regardless of what they are giving up (whether they realize it or not) to do so.

The distinction might be petty, but for even a junkie, used might be a more accurate descriptor than user.

As a non-junkie and non-member of the criminal infrastructure, one might see "drug users" feel used more than empowered through their gain of utility. Same is true for facebook "users" as well.

If you see "user" as someone who uses a product, then this discourse is pointless. But if you think of a "user" as someone empowered by products, then using the term "Facebook users" should make you feel uncomfortable.

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

#288

Post by aninhumer »

p4wnc6 wrote: post #163
aninhumer wrote: post #141

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…

Well it's nice that the true believers get something entertaining to read, but there are a lot of people looking for reasons to disagree or criticise who might find themselves converted if he put in some effort to address his arguments to them. As the figurehead of Free Software, we should expect more from him than esoteric literature.

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

#289

Post by beedogs »

morgante wrote: post #144
simbalion wrote: post #81

Stallman is my hero. All social media is terrible, and all of it is impossible to profit from, and I bet all of it will eventually fail. Facebook doesn't make any money from social media, they make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their social media platform. Anyone who is interested in social blogging should have their own website (wordpress.com is free) with RSS support so people who like what you wr…

> Facebook doesn't make any money from social media, they make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their social media platform. Newspapers never made money, they just made money from side businesses that were tacked onto their social media platform. TV shows don't make money, they just make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their shows. Just because you don't like a business model doesn't me…

> Advertising has been a successful business model for literally centuries.

Surely this explains why nearly every news site out there has been throwing up ad-blocker nag screens over the past few years. They must really be raking that revenue in! Not a troubled financial model at all, no sir!

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

#290

Post by beagle3 »

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 protects CDs from being copied

For 99.999% of the users, it restricts the user from copying the CD. And actually, the CD itself doesn't really care if it's copied, so the cd itself is not "protected" in any way. It provides some minimal protection to the rights owner from unauthorized copies (which are usually, but not necessarily illegal - c.f fair use).

Now, which terminology is more appropriate - that which describes the situation for essentially everyone involved (e.g. a billion people) or the rights holder (essentially less than 10 "people" if you count corporations as people)?

> Digital rights management manages the rights of the IP owner. These are just as valid.

Again, they are valid from the narrow point of view of 0.001% of the population, but INVALID and IRRELEVANT from the point of view of the rest.

"Copy Restriction" and "Digital Restriction Management" are factual and actually neutral. It is what these systems do. Whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view.

Similarly, it wasn't mentioned here, but stallman likes to refer to "Intellectual Property" as "Imaginary Property", which is also factual. I have yet to adopt this one, but I will only really accept "Intellectual Property" as property when it is taxed like property.

Post reply on HN