131–140 of 300 posts
Said the man who reads web pages through an email client.
Completely agreed, he completely lacks class. Even better, let's attack his ideas on basis that I don't like his beard, or that he looks a little chubby. He's not living in "the past", his living in his convictions. And that in itself is to be admired.
Many of Stallman's complaints about Facebook ( http://stallman.org/facebook.html ) apply equally to Google. Does anyone know whether he regards them in the same light?
"As for Facebook and Google+, I reject them on principle because they require people to give their 'real names'. I am proud to identify myself when stating my views; I can afford to do that because I am in a fairly safe position. There are people who rationally fear reprisals (from employers, gangsters, bullies, or the state) if they state their views. For their sake, let's reject any social networking site which insists on being told a user's real name... Google+ says it will offer to hide the user's real name, but demands people prove an 'established identity' or provide ID. I am suspicious of this requirement, but not sure what it will mean in practice..."
"People sometimes ask me to recommend an email service. The two ethical issues for an email service are (1) whether you can use it without running any nonfree software (including nonfree Javascript code from the site), and (2) whether it respects your privacy... Last I heard, Gmail was satisfactory on issue 1, and probably so are many others. On issue 2, I have no way to verify that any email service is satisfactory. Therefore, I have no recommendation to offer... However, I can suggest that it may be wise to use an email service that is not connected with your search engine. That way you can be almost sure that your email contents don't influence your search results. You shouldn't identify yourself to your search engine in any case."
When I was a kid, my parents sent me to camp, even though all I wanted to do was sit home and write text adventures in BASIC. I hated camp. I hated the kids, and the counselors, and most of all I hated how everyone acted like if you didn't like it, if you weren't having fun, then there was something messed up about you . Facebook = camp. The most oppressive and authoritarian thing about it is, at root, that most peop…
Calling Facebook an oppressive and authoritarian camp violating freedom seems extremely hyperbolic. Doesn't this disservice the experience of those who have actually died in oppressive and authoritarian camps? Is the mental pain individuals experience when using freely provided and voluntary services equivalent to the physical pain individuals experience when coerced to perform actions against their will via threats…
I think that Facebook is relatively oppressive and authoritarian in the context of online services and social software in general. Extending the analogy to another context (death camps?) is... well, I don't know how to describe the irrelevance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I'm on FB, and Joe X sends me a friend request, it goes in my email. Since I'm on FB, the implicit assumption is that I got the request. If I think Joe is nice enough, but not really my friend, I'm suddenly forced to (a) accept a friend who's not my friend, and imply I like him more than I do, (b) reject the request and make him think I don't like him, or (c) lie and say I don't get facebook emails. In reality,…
I am on Facebook and I don't get Facebook emails. You make a lot of assumptions about the platform you are not using.
BTW @ the guy who called me a sociopath: Not all relationships are black and white. There's such a thing as being polite to someone at parties and still not wanting to know every detail of their life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that requires you to surrender some of your most precious human rights in order to access it I'm genuinely curious, which human rights? I created an account, don't really use it... and don't feel like I've had any human rights taken away.
There's a distinction between having something taken and giving it freely. Facebook haters have the cognitive ability to make this distinction, but lack the integrity to do so.
The idea of "giving away" a right is not that simple--for example, I think there are certain rights you cannot legally waive. Even if what Facebook is doing is legal (which it probably is), this same principle can reasonably be extended to condemn what they are doing from an ethical standpoint.
Additionally, Facebook does not only affect the people using it. Information about people without accounts (provided by people with accounts) is still archived and searchable, potentially by unsavory entities. For these people, a certain right to privacy is basically taken away, and certainly not given away.
When I was a kid, my parents sent me to camp, even though all I wanted to do was sit home and write text adventures in BASIC. I hated camp. I hated the kids, and the counselors, and most of all I hated how everyone acted like if you didn't like it, if you weren't having fun, then there was something messed up about you . Facebook = camp. The most oppressive and authoritarian thing about it is, at root, that most peop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is a "heinous violation of your freedom and imposition on your private space". Would you care to elaborate? Which of your freedom(s) is being violated? What of your private space is being imposed upon?
I'm not on FB, so it's not. But if I were... I'd say the first thing to be violated would be my freedom to be left alone. To not know what other people were doing, or have them know what I'm doing. To be able to quietly tune the world out and focus on things. Then, of course, my right to own images of myself, to keep my location private, to register genuine surprise, in person, when I find out one of my friends is en…
What's Buenos Aires like, Josh Strike?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, a quick study will show you that it's the (by definition) minority of people who rebel against social norms and mass movements, the people who aren't followers, who have been the drivers of civilization, the catalysts for new ideas, the creators and inventors. I think it's safe to say most of those people hated or would hate summer camp. People who really love camp might be poster children for human herd be…
The belief that contrarianism is required as proof of "thinking for themselves" is a common logical fallacy. It is logical and valid to consider that someone may think for themselves and, after due diligence of doing so, make a decision which happens to coincide with that of many others.
When I was a kid, my parents sent me to camp, even though all I wanted to do was sit home and write text adventures in BASIC. I hated camp. I hated the kids, and the counselors, and most of all I hated how everyone acted like if you didn't like it, if you weren't having fun, then there was something messed up about you . Facebook = camp. The most oppressive and authoritarian thing about it is, at root, that most peop…
This is a really confusing post. Nobody cares that you don't like Facebook because nobody is forcing you to use Facebook. I'm at a loss as to how you can consider it "oppressive" and "authoritarian." Did some thugs from FB come around signing people up at gunpoint? I don't even see what you're trying to achieve, really. You just want other people to stop using Facebook because you don't like it?
I'm aware of parents who have 6 year olds and 10 year olds using Facebook so that they have access to games and family. The Facebook UI/UX does do nasty tricks to coerce people into providing more information than they prefer.
Did you know that other users can volunteer your information? Someone else can register themselves as your family member, close friend, or classmate at a specific institution, without your consent. They can volunteer your location (city) as well. This was not possible in the past, before the "smart lists" feature. They're literally getting people to fill in the information of friends so that they can be targeted ads even if they chose not to provide that information to facebook. I don't think many people know this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not on FB, so it's not. But if I were... I'd say the first thing to be violated would be my freedom to be left alone Thats not a freedom, that is a choice. You can have a facebook account and never log in to it. There may be other privacy concerns, but "freedom to be left alone" is not one of them.
When I'm on FB, and Joe X sends me a friend request, it goes in my email. Since I'm on FB, the implicit assumption is that I got the request. If I think Joe is nice enough, but not really my friend, I'm suddenly forced to (a) accept a friend who's not my friend, and imply I like him more than I do, (b) reject the request and make him think I don't like him, or (c) lie and say I don't get facebook emails. In reality,…
Also, there is no "reject", there is only "ignore" (i.e., the person does not receive a "rejected" message, they'll just never get an "approved" message). And if someone doesn't respond to my friend request: who cares? It's just Facebook. It's not the be-all end-all social network manager; it's just a communication medium.