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

291–300 of 376 posts

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

#291

Post by whyever »

School-Cotton wrote: post #179
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 t…

The BSD licence only exists because Stallman lobbied for it IIRC.

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

#292

Post by ktRolster »

pyre wrote: post #267
suprgeek wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is not "wrapping" the very language. He is trying to correct the semantic imbalance that is tilted towards the $100 Billion corporation. The thing you need to grok about RMS is that he is a purist. This fact strikes many people as stubborn, too idealistic, impractical etc - except that from RMS perspective it is the least he could do to stay true to himself. Also consider this - the world of software has been infi…

Is it the angry punk on the street corner screaming at you that convinces you to stop eating meat? Or the reasonable person that cooks you a tasty vegan meal and can hold a conversation with you? Just because the person has some amount of credentials doesn't change this fact. It's more about how people work than anything else.

RMS is both.....emacs and gcc and the GNU userland, etc are the tasty meal.

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

#293

Post by lunula »

raverbashing wrote: post #77

As much as I dislike Fb (though I am a user and their tracking is disabled through Ublock), Stallman articles are usually "Old man yells at cloud" thing) So yes, I do use Fb, I do use closed source software and I have better things than to care about my "alleged" freedom. I get more value from those than they get from me, I assure you.

I think his point is that you may feel this way now, but in the long term it will become apparent that the balance is not in your favor. If it is in your favor, then all the closed source systems and social networks have miscalculated and are in fact operating at a consistent loss. I am sure you are a smart person, but it doesn't seem likely that everyone has made a mistake in doing business with you and your data.

He is saying that it may seem like a good deal now, but it is likely to become apparent in the future that it hasn't been. It isn't like we need a platform like Facebook to communicate on the internet, and we could avoid all the problems that communicating through them by using existing peer to peer approaches for online communication.

I've run into RMS's page on this several times and it seems to double in length each time. This is to say that maybe things aren't getting better and the future in which even you might accept that it isn't a good thing to give ourselves to these platforms is quickly approaching.

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

#294

Post by ktRolster »

trungaczne wrote: post #227
programmarchy wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Responding to tone is already reaching level 3 on the hierarchy: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

So it's better than it could be.

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

#296

Post by lunula »

Faaak wrote: post #91
treve wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of arguing against the merit of his points, you choose to insult the person.

Actually they have a point. When you're "young" (ie in you twenties), then you miss quite some social events not using facebook. It's sad, but it's true. Nevertheless I don't use it, but sometimes I wish I did.

Even when you're not in your 20s anymore this problem continues. That said, I'm much happier to learn from someone directly about some event, or directly invite friends to do something. I want to spend time with people who are socially active and it seems like those who are using social media to drive their social life are significantly more passive.

We should keep friends like we used to, by sharing with them directly. In even a moderately-sized community we are never more than a step or two from everyone else, so networks of friends talking is more than enough to tell everyone about a cool event or party. I'm afraid that people forget this and become so reliant on broadcast systems like Facebook that they forget to maintain the social fabric with direct communication.

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

#297

Post by lunula »

shazow wrote: post #12
manu-chroma wrote: post #2

Can any one point out when was this article written ? He has some really valid points in there.

Looking at the links mentioned in the article, they span from 2011 to 2016 as is evident from the URLs. Seems it's being updated regularly.

I've seen it over the years and every time it seems to have grown twice as long.

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

#298

Post by cel1ne »

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"…

RMS is a "maniac", and I don't mean that in any derogative sense, but I can't find a better word. He is able to put forward enormous amounts of passion and energy for his cause.

Sometimes there are people who commit to ideas in such a way. Think of Gandhi and his absolute commitment to non-violence in any situation.

It's good that these people do what they do, but it's also important that they are taken with a grain of salt.

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

#299

Post by dingo_bat »

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…

Same for google. They don't make any money from search. They earn by selling ads. This is just a stupid exercise you can do with any company.

Microsoft doesn't make any money from software. It makes all its money from sabotaging and undercutting its competitors.

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

#300

Post by hubert123 »

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"…

ok great, you dont like how he uses one word. Another meta comment which adds nothing
Post reply on HN