Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project." • Hacker News Board

Re: Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

#151

Post by joedev » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 9:53 PM UTC

noduerme wrote: post #138

joedev wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not talking about contrarianism, or a compulsive desire to come to the opposite conclusion as others. I'm talking about critical thinking: The ability to maintain an unpopular view, after due diligence, and particularly the ability to do so in the face of social pressure.

I see. I can buy that. It's just that you said that people who love summer camp suck at thinking for themselves and I don't see the connection. "If you like summer camp then you suck at thinking for yourself" just sounds like a logical fallacy, that's all.

Re: Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

#152

Post by timClicks » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 9:53 PM UTC

Sanddancer wrote: post #68

praptak wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare RMS' achievements in the social field (you know, like starting the social movement to popularize free software) with, well, just about anyone else on this planet before judging his social skills as poor.

Yes, he did a lot. 25-30 years ago. What's he done lately?

AFAIK he has very bad RSI and doesn't write much code these days. He spends most of his time talking at conferences.

Re: Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

#153

Post by dasil003 » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 9:54 PM UTC

davidhollander wrote: post #148

dasil003 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wasn't talking about those camps though. He was talking about American summer camp.

Which an authority figure sent him to against his will. Authoritarian power is universally derived the ability to assert the right to legitimate force over others. This is in sharp contrast to voluntary institutions and businesses such as Facebook or Google, which assert no right to legitimate force, and are therefore limited to the power which individuals choose to grant them for catering to their preferences.

Comparing parents to genocidal dictators is quite a bit more hyperbolic than the OP.

Re: Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

#154

Post by millzlane » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 9:57 PM UTC

pavanky wrote: post #70

fudged wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To many people, Facebook is the default communication channel. To delete your Facebook account is like to be offered a free iphone + unlimited contract and refuse it; the idea of removing your name from the social phonebook is beyond the comprehension of many people. And subconsciously, you're removing value from other people's valued medium/experience. By not having account, you must have some opposition to somethin…

How is this different from someone saying, I am offended you don't smoke weed, or I am offended, in this country of XYZ religion, you are not ?

Want to know the difference between people who use facebook and the people that don't?

The difference is that the people who don't use Facebook care that you do.

We just don't like being left out because we don't have Facebook.

Re: Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

#155

Post by neilk » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 9:58 PM UTC

coffeemug wrote: post #149

noduerme wrote: post #10

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…

There is a world of difference between citizens complaining how their governments are corrupt, and husbands complaining how their wives boss them around. The former is a macro problem - if you're unhappy there's very little you can do to make a difference, you really need everyone to get behind your cause but because of weird behavioral science quirks this happens very rarely. The latter is a micro problem - learn to…

> It's entirely within your control to limit the information you give them, carefully select privacy settings

Except Facebook unilaterally changes its guarantees about privacy, year after year, always in its own favor.

This takes you up to 2010: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline

In 2011 and 2012, they further codified how your private information is also subject to what your friends do. Some of this is common sense, some not so much. http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/22/technology/facebook-privacy-...

I'm not saying Facebook is evil, exactly... no more than a parasite is. ;) Their business model doesn't align them with their users' needs for privacy.

Re: Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

#156

Post by khyryk » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 9:59 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #104

pavanky wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different from someone saying, I am offended you don't smoke weed, or I am offended, in this country of XYZ religion, you are not ?

If you don't smoke, that doesn't prevent other people from smoking. If you're not on FB, that does prevent other people from messaging/whatever you on FB.

"you're removing value from other people's valued medium/experience" because smoking can be a social exercise.

Re: Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

#157

Post by Sanddancer » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 9:59 PM UTC

skore wrote: post #124

Sanddancer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, he did a lot. 25-30 years ago. What's he done lately?

Sticked to his principles to remain a beacon that reminds us why the foundation he built those 25-30 years ago is still worth fighting for.

I disagree. His actions lately have driven many, including myself, away from supporting GNU projects and into supporting other free alternatives. Using the GPL 3 on software such as gcc has caused many people, such as Apple, the FreeBSD foundation, and the OpenBSD foundation, to seek alternative sources for GNU software, such as the clang project and the pcc compiler project. His reluctance to use modern technology, such as cell phones, has distanced himself from many who realize the benefits of such actions, and who know that such devices are available prepaid, and with off buttons, for if you want to use them anonymously. His petty name-calling of closed-source products that he doesn't like, such as iClone for the iPhone, has served to turn off many to his message, to the detriment of the FOSS community.

I agree with many of his principles, however, his time has come and gone. His view of computing seems stuck to how it existed 25-30 years ago, which is proving increasingly detrimental to recruiting new people to the cause of Free Software. By ignoring why people use closed products, such as his views on why Free Software users would use closed source dictation software ( https://lists.csail.mit.edu/pipermail/csail-related/2012-Feb... ), he has made Free Software less capable of competing because it doesn't do what people expect software to do. Once he realizes this, and that one can and should look at why people use alternatives to GNU software, then we can possibly move forward. Unfortunately, I don't have much hope that that will happen as long as RMS is at the helm.

Re: Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

#158

Post by khyryk » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 10:02 PM UTC

prof_hobart wrote: post #125

victork2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one think it's a great analogy (having been in a camp I can definitely say that I didn't enjoy it and I was rejected based on that). I silently deleted my facebook account about two years ago because I didn't like losing my time looking at stupid stuff. I found out that falling into the Facebook time vortex was too much of an inconvenience and the only way around that was to delete Facebook. Now when I say that…

Having a Facebook account doesn't force you to either give up your privacy (you don't need to post anything if you don't want to) or to waste your time (you don't need to read anything if you don't want to). I've got a Facebook account, and I check it every now and then - it's quite a nice way to keep vaguely up to date with what's happening in the lives of people I've been to school with/worked with over the years.…

I have a bit of an addictive personality and the easiest way of preventing myself from wasting time is just by getting rid of the thing. Your response is the generic moderation response; some people just don't understand that it would be far more of a waste of energy to try and discipline myself than it would be to prevent the problem from arising.

Re: Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

#159

Post by fudged » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 10:04 PM UTC

coffeemug wrote: post #149

noduerme wrote: post #10

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…

There is a world of difference between citizens complaining how their governments are corrupt, and husbands complaining how their wives boss them around. The former is a macro problem - if you're unhappy there's very little you can do to make a difference, you really need everyone to get behind your cause but because of weird behavioral science quirks this happens very rarely. The latter is a micro problem - learn to…

I disagree with this actually, for several reasons! You're speaking about the Facebook of yesterday. Within the last year, they have introduced several features which remove the control of your privacy, and distribute the information gathering to your connections.

But first, in regards to the Facebook of yesterday, you will find many resources that describe how few people actually change their privacy settings or even understand them. This has improved over time, but I know plenty of intelligent people who don't understand many of the settings that have been introduced over the years. The product that they signed up for isn't the same as it is today.

In regards to the reduced control over your own privacy, it's important to note that your friends can volunteer information about you indirectly by using "smart lists". You can tell facebook what city someone is in, what university, whether they are in your family, or if they are a close friend. You can add geographic information to other peoples' photos. Also, because of the different levels of update subscriptions, Facebook has made it favorable for people to use the "Life Stories" feature of their profiles/timeslines because they don't know which friends have unsubscribed from seeing "all updates" ("most important" updates most likely implies Life Stories).

Also, certain features still have no privacy. Answers to all Facebook Questions are public on your profile. Even as intimate with the privacy settings that I am, I didn't know this! So you either have to not use the feature (which would require knowing about the privacy setting before using it), or deleting these answers after making them.

Edit: I forgot to mention that so many people make public posts on Facebook, that you can't comment on any of those without your comments also being public. Most people don't care. So the network is becoming more public, with less opportunity to stay private. And remember that when you comment on those public posts, your comment is shown in the ticker and newsfeeds of your friends (which, in my opinion, is a violation of my privacy. Just because I comment on something doesn't mean I want it notified to my friends). These two actions of public posts have no privacy options... the only thing you can do is avoid commenting on public posts.

Re: Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

#160

Post by tangus » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 10:07 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #122

noduerme wrote: post #113

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.

That's strange. I created a fake account some years ago, to contact some old friends whose email I had lost. I used the account for almost one week. To this day I still get a facebook email every 4-5 days. If nobody invites me to a group (!?) or posts new photos in their gallery, then it's facebook itself who wants to remind me that it's been a long time since the last time I logged in, and my friends are waiting to hear from me!