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

311–320 of 376 posts

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

#311

Post by stephenr »

bjourne wrote: post #219
bunderbunder wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, and even after taking a few breaths and trying to read it more calmly, his hyper-paternalistic posture still gets to me. Can you give some examples from the text? Like you are expressing frustration over something but what is it? It's a long list of arguments with links to supporting articles. I don't understand what your complaint is.

I can't speak for the person you replied to, but it seems that I'm not the only one in this thread who gets a descending, "I know better, you should just listen to me" vibe from a lot of Stallman's writing.

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

#312

Post by kagamine »

nikcub wrote: post #142
curiousgal wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in fairness Facebook doesn't allow for much harassment. Messages from people outside your friendlist get routed to an other inbox and you can stop people from adding you or even finding you via searches, Not to mention blocking. So yeah, in the extent of stating safe from harassment using a pseudoname is overboard.

It's not just harrasement in that sense, but also that you don't want to be bothered. With some parents, if they find you have a Facebook profile, they'll expect to be added. Once you are added, they'll expect you respond to private messages, etc. I've heard some horror stories about helicopter parents and how they deal with teachers online

When my children started nursery and later school the parents were told by the staff that they will not friend you, if the FB account is in their name then consider it a private/personal account. If you want to contact the school look for fooSchool on facebook or similar.

Once it has been made clear at the start of the year then staff need only reiterate if a parent forgets.

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

#314

Post by stephenr »

geff82 wrote: post #66
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, to some extend, is like the pope. He often says strange things, where many people do not instantly agree. But he won't change his message just to please you, which is what we are used to get from most people, especially politicians. You can count on him and his, at heart, very humanist views. I recently was at one of his keynotes, and we all, including me, could only laugh at his over-and-over usage of words lik…

> RMS, to some extend, is like the pope.

Except, the current pope has made statements that show more flexibility to adapt to reality, regarding topics such as the bing bang/creationism, gay marriage, apologising to the gay community and other marginalised groups, etc.

I am in no way religious. At all. Not the slightest bit.

I am 100% convinced I could have a meaningful, pleasant conversation with the Pope. I am positive we would find a middle ground to chat over coffee, for example.

I am 100% convinced I could not do the same with Stallman. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, his general demeanour seems to be "Listen up chumps, I know what I'm talking about, if you don't agree with me, it must be because you're too stupid.". He shows no ability to accept an alternative viewpoint.

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

#315

Post by stephenr »

jdietrich wrote: post #248
vacri wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holding firm to your ideal includes getting your message across effectively. If you want social change, which Stallman does, you have to 'preach beyond the choir'. I don't think Stallman's positions are silly. A touch extreme, but I generally agree with them. I just think his name-calling runs counter to what he wants to achieve.

RMS isn't writing for a general audience, he is writing for us. We hackers can spread the word in a palatable manner; RMS's job is to hold us to account, push us to the highest standards of ethical conduct and hold a mirror up to our hypocrisies. The world needs pragmatists, but it needs zealots too.

> RMS isn't writing for a general audience, he is writing for us.

People who already agree with him? Great way to spread his message huh?

> RMS's job is to hold us to account, push us to the highest standards of ethical conduct

For certain (i.e: his) values of "ethical conduct", obviously.

> The world needs pragmatists, but it needs zealots too

And apparently a lot of people need a messiah to follow.

If you need someone to "push you to the highest standards of ethical conduct", I'd like an hour of your time to explain how not giving all your money and assets to me, is completely unethical.

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

#316

Post by stephenr »

suprgeek wrote: post #237
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"…

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…

> expectation that software developers pay attention

RMS doesn't have an expectation that devs pay attention.

He has a pre-disposed opinion that he is absolutely ethically and morally right, and that we snivelling shits should be glad to have the opportunity to accept his humble offerings of knowledge.

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

#317

Post by geff82 »

stephenr wrote: post #314
geff82 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS, to some extend, is like the pope. He often says strange things, where many people do not instantly agree. But he won't change his message just to please you, which is what we are used to get from most people, especially politicians. You can count on him and his, at heart, very humanist views. I recently was at one of his keynotes, and we all, including me, could only laugh at his over-and-over usage of words lik…

> RMS, to some extend, is like the pope. Except, the current pope has made statements that show more flexibility to adapt to reality, regarding topics such as the bing bang/creationism, gay marriage, apologising to the gay community and other marginalised groups, etc. I am in no way religious. At all. Not the slightest bit. I am 100% convinced I could have a meaningful, pleasant conversation with the Pope. I am posit…

Just as the pope would not find atheism an acceptable attitude, RMS would not find non-free-software or software that takes away rights to your devices and data acceptable. From what I found, it is very well possible to discuss a lot of broader topics with RMS. He seems to be very open to cultures and revolutionary ideas and can discuss them from various viewpoints if he is in the mood. He also has ideas (e.g. copyright on films) where he suggests stuff, but is open to discussion and ideas.

Today, essentially all software runs on his ideas. Gnu/Linux is at the heart of Android, most (home)routers, the vast majority of webservers. The "hacker" community here at HN is full of knowledge about *Unix systems, that nowadays are full of GNU software. He is awkward a lot of times, but essentially, by being so, he (in conjunction with Linus) won over the world.

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

#318

Post by drdaeman »

ppopoff wrote: post #238
drdaeman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a point, but I believe warping the language from the norms can be different. I can't know what Stallman meant exactly and what are his intentions, but from reading the text I believe what he tries to do is to either create a neologism (cf. "enforce a meme"), or avoid a word misuse that may lead to some invalid connotations or suggestions (cf. calling a photocopier "xerox"). Probably both, but the latter case…

Except that Stallman uses what you identify as name-calling all the time (cf. Amazon Swindle). Also, the oft-repeated notion that "piracy" is a contemporary slur invented to associate copyright infringers with violence on the high seas is simply wrong. It's documented since 1603 (The Wonderfull yeare, T. Dekker), and is the term used by the 1883 Berne Convention. That's covers most of the history of the word in Engli…

1. Yes, and no props to him on that. Name-calling's just inappropriate for a public rhetoric. But as for this particular article - it's a different case.

2. It's not about history rewriting. When one uses different term and disagrees with the commonly used one, they don't (well... normally) deny the facts that there is such use. The usual attitude is "they say 'piracy' but I believe it's wrong to use this term in such context"

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

#319

Post by madeofpalk »

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 think such a seriously scary thing like this would remain a secret for long. Not only would I think that someone inside of Facebook would leak it (just like the Trending News debacle that Gawker covered), but I strongly believe that security researchers or other people fiddling around with things on their phone or the Facebook app would uncover it.

Combine that with permission models on most devices that alert the user when the microphone is turned on, I cannot see Facebook doing this secretly.

Also, just think about all the things that your girlfriend said around her phone that hasn't turned up in Facebook ads. I'm willing to chalk this up to a weird coincidence or other reasons mentioned here.

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

#320

Post by markvdb »

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...

In a recent past, what is now commonly referred to as "ip" or "intellectual property" used to be described more accurately as intellectual rights.

Sorry, could not resist.

Post reply on HN