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

351–360 of 376 posts

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

#351

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

Udik wrote: post #340
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. But are you saying that "user" is a perspective that is justified simply by the fact that the used has an advantage from Facebook? > In the end probably it all depends on a value judgement: Of course it does. Everything does. Even whether killing pe…

> But are you saying that "user" is a perspective that is justified simply by the fact that the used has an advantage from Facebook? As for any other product or service. > Why should he? And doesn't he? Did you not understand him that you think he should express himself clearer? Stallman says: We call them "useds" rather than "users" because Facebook is using them, not vice versa. This is provably wrong: people use F…

> As for any other product or service.

So, what was your objection to saying "used" again, if that same justification can be used for both?

> This is provably wrong: people use Facebook and get a marginal advantage out of it that is arguably on par with what Facebook gets from them.

Well, you say that that is provably wrong. But where is the proof?

> But apparently a lot of people likes it, and find it a valuable addition to their lives.

Which sounds like an argument that you could use to justify any status quo? Aren't you effectively saying that the fact that something is the way it is indicates that people value that it is the way it is and that therefore people couldn't possibly want it any other way?

Couldn't it be that people aren't aware of possible alternative realities and thus haven't ever thought about how they would value those in comparison to what they currently have, for example?

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

#352

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

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…

Does anyone have any better evidence this is happening, or if it's something specific to Samsung phones at least? Seems like this would be easy to confirm with packet captures. I know the technical capability is there, but this would be news to me that they are listening all of the time AND acting on that information (different from listening all the time and waiting for a keyword to engage processing -- "hey siri" etc)

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

#353

Post by arca_vorago »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #250
Retric wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's useful to have someone out the outer edge of a issue as a benchmark. At somepoint the person who compromises less wins. Copy protection does not protect copy's it prevents them. Calling it protection is letting one side win before you start talking.

There's a term for this in the realm of public debate, which I am presently unable to recall, but the gist of it is the idea that you ask for a much greater concession than you really want in the hope the stakeholders settle closer to your ideal than if you'd simply laid your cards on the table. By doing this repeatedly and over time we can (slowly, maybe less slowly?) change the course of history.

Overton window perhaps? The main way the mainstream media prevents this is, as Chomsky said, narrowly defining/limiting the terms of debate, but allowing very lively debate within those confines.

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

#354

Post by phamilton »

kartickv wrote: post #225
nsgi wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well... they call it overdraft protection, which is when they loan you money for a fee to cover a purchase that exceeds your balance.

In practice, instead of getting "Declined" and using a credit card instead, you end up paying $35 in order to borrow $1.

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

#355

Post by jordigh »

kstrauser wrote: post #346
jordigh wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When RMS says "free", he means "copyleft". No, no, no, no, a thousand times no: Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions as free software. A free license may also permit other ways of releasing them; in other words, it does not have to be a copyleft license. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html > Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... . Do people ev…

"It does not have to be", but in practice it usually is (although he accepts BSD, even though it doesn't guarantee users' access to modifications). RMS advocates "liberated" software, or software that is itself free from being locked into a proprietary fork. That's the whole point of the GPL family of licenses. If you read the corpus of his works - I have - he very consistently talks about the importance of software…

Yes, he's talking about a disagreement there with the open source movement. But the overall thrust of the article is that FS and OS are the same thing, overall, but lead people to different conclusions. He explicitly addresses the misconception that people think that only copyleft is free:

    Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea 
    that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to  
    accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” 
    means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, 
    since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license 
    and most of the open source licenses qualify as free 
    software licenses. There are many free software 
    licenses aside from the GNU GPL.
And that's all I want to get across. rms isn't as loony as people who want to disagree with him make him out to be.

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

#356

Post by erroneousfunk »

kartickv wrote: post #244
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…

I have been struggling to identify why I dismiss Stallman and think of him as a idiot, and your post calls it out: the bullying. The assumption that if you don't 100% agree with him, you are an idiot. And the complete lack of empathy.

Agreed. It's things like the line: "From now on, when people want to snap me with a mobile, I will verify it does not have a Facebook app installed before I say yes."

What is he actually achieving there? People can legally take his picture without his permission. People can take his picture (on a Facebook-less phone) and then upload it to Facebook later. And what sort of malicious things is the Facebook server going to do with his sacred visage anyway?

So a fan asks for a picture, he demands to search through their phone first, probably gives them some anti-Facebook lecture if their apps don't pass muster... but for no actual "privacy" benefit? Okay. It's just bullying.

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

#357

Post by jolux »

beagle3 wrote: post #336
jolux wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does protect the customer though, at the very least it means their money was well spent and other people can't violate that social contract by taking what they want for free.

Personally, I don't feel any social contract is violated if someone else gets for free music that I paid money for. Furthermore, it seems neither do many of the artists - most of them make their music available for free through e.g. YouTube. And even if such a social contract existed, I suspect I would feel more harmed by the inability to format-shift the music I bought, than by someone else listening to the music wi…

Well no it doesn't, but that's generally because they had rewards with the airline or bought it in a deal somewhere. Both are legal ways to reduce the money you pay for things. As is streaming music these days. And I should emphasize I'm not against being able to crack DRM and I think it would be really bad to make uncrackable DRM. In my opinion DRM is not supposed to stop the people who would crack it anyways, it's the people who would try it just for the hell of it if it were easy. It's like why you put a lock on your house: it's not because it makes it impenetrable to burglars, it's because it keeps out 99% of the assholes who would just walk in if there was no door.

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

#359

Post by beagle3 »

jolux wrote: post #357
beagle3 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don't feel any social contract is violated if someone else gets for free music that I paid money for. Furthermore, it seems neither do many of the artists - most of them make their music available for free through e.g. YouTube. And even if such a social contract existed, I suspect I would feel more harmed by the inability to format-shift the music I bought, than by someone else listening to the music wi…

Well no it doesn't, but that's generally because they had rewards with the airline or bought it in a deal somewhere. Both are legal ways to reduce the money you pay for things. As is streaming music these days. And I should emphasize I'm not against being able to crack DRM and I think it would be really bad to make uncrackable DRM. In my opinion DRM is not supposed to stop the people who would crack it anyways, it's…

I still fail to see how I am better served because someone else cannot copy some music without a rights holder permission.

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

#360

Post by Udik »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #351
Udik wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But are you saying that "user" is a perspective that is justified simply by the fact that the used has an advantage from Facebook? As for any other product or service. > Why should he? And doesn't he? Did you not understand him that you think he should express himself clearer? Stallman says: We call them "useds" rather than "users" because Facebook is using them, not vice versa. This is provably wrong: people use F…

> As for any other product or service. So, what was your objection to saying "used" again, if that same justification can be used for both? > This is provably wrong: people use Facebook and get a marginal advantage out of it that is arguably on par with what Facebook gets from them. Well, you say that that is provably wrong. But where is the proof? > But apparently a lot of people likes it, and find it a valuable add…

>> As for any other product or service.

>So, what was your objection to saying "used" again, if that same justification can be used for both?

My dear amass of eukaryotic cells, you non super-intelligent consumer of oxygen and precious resources, polluter of the environment, when you choose to emphasise in an unusual way some perfectly normal aspects of an object (* ), you do it to provoke an emotional response. And I like rational discourses, not emotional ones.

[* unless this provides an explanatory value, which in this case doesn't, as most of Stallman's points are unrelated to the user/used issue]

>> This is provably wrong: people use Facebook and get a marginal advantage out of it that is arguably on par with what Facebook gets from them.

>Well, you say that that is provably wrong. But where is the proof?

You can just ask people if they like to use Facebook, if they get any value from it. Most of those who use it regularly will say they do. End of the proof.

> Couldn't it be that people aren't aware of possible alternative realities and thus haven't ever thought about how they would value those in comparison to what they currently have, for example?

Of course it is like that. You aren't aware yourself that there are many better things to do than roaming the forums of YCombinator, and yet I bet you find some value in the action, and the (sure) existence of unexplored alternatives is not per se sufficient to negate this value.

Post reply on HN