Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
networkworld.com
Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
1–10 of 86 posts
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#2Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#3Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.
First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. What is this "convenience-privacy continuum?" I just did a web search, I can't find anything. Citation, please. Third, I dispute your suggestion that there is nothing to see here. Strongly. Forcefully.
If someone has never read anything about or by Mr. Stallman, there is plenty to see here. There may be nothing to see here for you, but when you say "Nothing to see here," you are speaking in absolutes. I have read a fair bit about his beliefs and I found a few things of interest in the article, such as the discussion about the Replicant variation of Android and the Tivoization of Android by carriers. This may not be news to you, but it's news to me.
Therefore, I say there is something to see here.
I can't speak to your thinking or motivations, so what follows is a general observation: On HN we have a principle of not downvoting comments just because we disagree. Upvotes and downvotes are ideally applied on the basis of whether they contribute positively to the discussion. A contribution can be made simply by opening a new line of thought, even if the premise is flawed.
I am not going to get into whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Stallman's beliefs. However, I will suggest that his various missives, rants, and other statements contribute positively to the general fabric of discussion around software freedom and personal privacy. This suggestion is open to discussion: I am aware that some people think his zeal does more harm than good. But that's what I believe.
I said above that I believe the article provides a public good by including information that someone like myself may not have already known. I now suggest that the article also presents something that is a public good by contributing positively to the general fabric of discussion about cell phone technology and privacy, even if you or I might disagree with Mr. Stallman's views.
You are free to draw your own conclusions, of course. I'm just trying to explain mine.
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#4[deleted]
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#5Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.
First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. What is this "convenience-privacy continuum?" I just did a web search, I can't find anything. Citation, please. Third, I dispute your suggestion that there is nothing to see here. Strongly. Forcefully. If someone has never read anything about or by Mr. Stallman, there is plenty to see here. There may be nothing to se…
People are turned off by RMS's extreme stance and the "Stalin's dream" hyperbole, but the problems he is talking about certainly do exist. They're something to think about.
I wonder if there is really a need to choose either convenience or privacy in the long run. Privacy-conscious technologies could be made easy to use. We're just not there yet, but it seems that lately security is being taken more seriously. When people realize how much of their lives they are giving away there might be a push for it...
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#6Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.
First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. What is this "convenience-privacy continuum?" I just did a web search, I can't find anything. Citation, please. Third, I dispute your suggestion that there is nothing to see here. Strongly. Forcefully. If someone has never read anything about or by Mr. Stallman, there is plenty to see here. There may be nothing to se…
While I agree with the merit of what you just said, you too ended up sounding smug and arrogant.
Open your comment in a text editor and count how many times you said " I ".
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. What is this "convenience-privacy continuum?" I just did a web search, I can't find anything. Citation, please. Third, I dispute your suggestion that there is nothing to see here. Strongly. Forcefully. If someone has never read anything about or by Mr. Stallman, there is plenty to see here. There may be nothing to se…
People are turned off by RMS's extreme stance and the "Stalin's dream" hyperbole, but the problems he is talking about certainly do exist. They're something to think about. I wonder if there is really a need to choose either convenience or privacy in the long run. Privacy-conscious technologies could be made easy to use. We're just not there yet, but it seems that lately security is being taken more seriously. When p…
Lightening up the tone, I wish we could figure out a way to use Stallman as a bad cop: "Mr. FCC chairman, I appreciate the arguments the Telcos have made to you on the Golf Course. But if you don't display a little flexibility on the subject of Net Neutrality, we're going to have Richard back in here eating his toenails during the hearings. And once he starts talking, it's impossible to get him to stop. Nobody wants that. So how about we do this..."
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. What is this "convenience-privacy continuum?" I just did a web search, I can't find anything. Citation, please. Third, I dispute your suggestion that there is nothing to see here. Strongly. Forcefully. If someone has never read anything about or by Mr. Stallman, there is plenty to see here. There may be nothing to se…
While I agree with the merit of what you just said, you too ended up sounding smug and arrogant. Open your comment in a text editor and count how many times you said " I ".
Everyone has their own style and code of conduct. I feel it's disingenuous for me to state personal opinions in a neutral tone, implying that they are facts.
I also find such writing bloodless. Others may have a knack for doing it well, but when I write without putting myself into the words, it reads like I'm pretending to be an academic writing a paper with all the neutrality and "fair and balanced" viewpoints.
Context affects my perspective on this. Sites like Quora, Stack Exchange, and Wikipedia exist to build compendiums of knowledge. Neutrality is crucial to their mission. But is the article comments of Hacker News the same kind of place? I don't know, but so far I don't think so. (I could have written, "But so far it seems this is not the case," I imagine). Hacker News is composed of people discussing ideas with people. Personal opinions seem to be the point of the comments section.
So... When I state my opinions I use the word "I."
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with the merit of what you just said, you too ended up sounding smug and arrogant. Open your comment in a text editor and count how many times you said " I ".
Everyone has their own style and code of conduct. I feel it's disingenuous for me to state personal opinions in a neutral tone, implying that they are facts. I also find such writing bloodless. Others may have a knack for doing it well, but when I write without putting myself into the words, it reads like I'm pretending to be an academic writing a paper with all the neutrality and "fair and balanced" viewpoints. Cont…
p.s. Thinking about it, although I explained why I use the word "I," I certainly didn't dispute that I sounded smug and arrogant. So perhaps (a) I ought to use the word "I" when stating my opinions, but (b) I'm going to sound smug and arrogant when doing so. Which presents a few possibilities:
1. Stop using the word "I" but continue to state my opinions. 2. Stop stating my opinions. 3. Carry on, but live with the consequences of sounding smug and arrogant.
Is it possible that throwing opinions around is smug and arrogant, no matter how they are couched? Perhaps the real issue here is between pretending to be humble (option 1) or actually being humble (option 2)?
Whackberry, this is very interesting, and I'm sorry I only have one upvote to give your response.
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#10Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.
First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. What is this "convenience-privacy continuum?" I just did a web search, I can't find anything. Citation, please. Third, I dispute your suggestion that there is nothing to see here. Strongly. Forcefully. If someone has never read anything about or by Mr. Stallman, there is plenty to see here. There may be nothing to se…
Only re. point two, googling "privacy vs convenience" returns a whole mess of articles, about cell phones, data mining, etc.