Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

lists.csail.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 300 posts

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

#171

Post by Karunamon »

nooop wrote: post #121
Karunamon wrote: post #61

So am I the only person who thinks this characterization of facebook as a "parasite" or a "disease" is meaningless, useless hyperbole? Facebook isn't any more of a "parasite" than email.

email is not a private company looking for using you as their product.

"Using" - more like you provide information which is the price of admission. Same as it is with any other company providing a free service. Characterizing Facebook as "evil" for this is quite silly.

And much like email, you can roll your own. It's much harder, but it's possible.

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

#173

Post by davidhollander »

dasil003 wrote: post #153
davidhollander wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect the point of contention is lack of clarification of definitions and terms, particularly regarding 'freedom', the OP's phrase 'heinous violations of freedom', and the concept of violations of freedom in general.

I would define 'freedom' in a very narrow and non-metaphysical sense, as 'the ability to make choices free of threats of violence by others'. I derive this definition by asking the following questions: Do slaves choose where to work? Do prisoners choose what to eat? Do victims of murder choose to die? Or has someone else made the decision for them by threatening violence?

This is more or less the definition of 'freedom' by philosophers of Liberalism and more precisely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty . Under such a definition, the concept of 'violation of freedom' is semantically linked to authority, force, and violence.

Examining Stallman's logic, one finds a variety of alternate definitions of 'freedom'. Whether these are more universally consistent definitions of 'freedom' is up for others to decide. The ongoing debate over whether it is fair to characterize the actions of Facebook and similar corporations as 'heinous violations of freedom' will remain unresolved until a definition of 'freedom' is agreed upon.

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

#174

Post by bullies »

psychotik wrote: post #95

I have a love-hate/hypocritical relationship with Facebook, but one that prevents me from not using it. Even if I want to not use it, I have to because: 1) I have a product that users want to use with Facebook, so I need to use FB APIs etc and understand how it works for real users 2) I have a product that can benefit from viral-ness on Facebook I wonder how many other developers share such ambivalence about being fo…

You don't have to use facebook, you want to. A product doesn't force, humans do.

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

#175

Post by prof_hobart »

khyryk wrote: post #158
prof_hobart wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough. But that's really a problem with you, not Facebook. Which is fine - like I say, it's your choice to have Facebook or not.

But statements like "In my books Facebook should really not be in the standards" suggest that some people think the issue lives with Facebook.

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

#176

Post by noduerme »

fudged wrote: post #143
noduerme wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this dark, disturbing, and terrifying. As a never-was, non-social-media user... I'm only 31... 5 years ago, I felt like I couldn't understand kids who were a few years younger than me. Now I feel like there's a total rupture between my mode of being and that of almost everyone else. When I give you my attention, I'm giving it to you . Completely. I don't multitask people. And you know I want to talk to you, be…

whose apparent sense of inadequacy and misunderstanding of the nature of personal relationships are written large across every aspect of that system I believe the contrary is true. Facebook is successful because Zuckerberg et al understand social ties to the point where they have locked people into their system, got them to interact more, provide all their private information, and then profit off them by serving them…

I think FB was able to quantify and monetize a certain kind of social tie its founders were probably aloof from themselves - bullshit friendship. I'm guessing Zuckerberg approached this with the irony of any self-respecting geek, ensaring phonies in their own "Let's be friends" routine.

Sure, it's brilliant. But it's incredibly misanthropic, because it really thrives on the worst impulses in human nature. Underneath those phony platitudes might be genuinely caring individuals, but now thanks to Zuck, that one lie they told in college - "Let's be friends, call me" - will be etched on their facebook pages long after they're gone.

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

#177

Post by fl3tch »

fudged wrote: post #159
coffeemug wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

> your friends can volunteer information about you indirectly by using "smart lists"

I didn't even know about this, but it illustrates that merely signing up exposes you to potential privacy violations. We recently became aware of how much of a liability it is for employers to look at Facebook profiles, because they may learn intimate details about a person's sexual orientation, religion, politics, etc. The only solution is to never look.

Likewise, the only way to adequately protect your privacy is to never sign up on Facebook. BTW, this takes care of the employer problem, too.

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

#178

Post by bullies »

eta_carinae wrote: post #56
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…

Come on. You didn't have much choice going to camp because your parents forced you but the only thing forcing you to use Facebook is peer pressure. If you give in to it, it's because you see more pros than cons. Not feeling sorry for you. As for the age old myth that people are migrating away from Facebook, dream on. Facebook is scheduled to have a billion users in the next few months, it's going to be around for a v…

I think you underestimate the effect of peer pressure. It is likely to be one of the most strongest pressures of all for a social beeing such as humans.

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

#179

Post by skore »

Sanddancer wrote: post #157
skore wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I see his role a bit different - RMS stance on software freedom should be understood as a constitution. Setting in stone the ground rules that can then be amended, but not overturned.

Sure - current generations deal with a different reality compared to when he started out, but there is still paramount value in having his philosophy at heart. He may be old fashioned when it comes to new technology and he sure is quirky in a way that drives away some people, but all that doesn't stop people from interpreting what he has done and applying it to the world today.

I think the real problem is that you put RMS on a pedestal that he doesn't belong on. He is not the root node for what happens in Free Software today and I'm sure that the examples you cited weren't really that much about him, or even about the GPL3.

He has a very distinct, central viewpoint: freedom - and the link you quoted shows that you simply have a differing opinion about where to start thinking about software. You start with the user expecting features, RMS starts with the user deserving freedom. Both viewpoints have value, but RMS represents a constant that shouldn't be messed with and does not necessarily get in the way of your objective.

It is much more sensible to respect his service and do your best to live up to the standard he has set than to deconstruct his persona based on it being somewhat anachronistic. In my opinion, the best progress is made in dialog with our history, not in annoyed, knee-jerk revolt against it.

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

#180

Post by fudged »

fl3tch wrote: post #177
fudged wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

> your friends can volunteer information about you indirectly by using "smart lists" I didn't even know about this, but it illustrates that merely signing up exposes you to potential privacy violations. We recently became aware of how much of a liability it is for employers to look at Facebook profiles, because they may learn intimate details about a person's sexual orientation, religion, politics, etc. The only solu…

Exactly. Even if you try data poisoning (making an account with fake details), people can still attribute details to your account unsuspectingly. And you can't stop them from doing it, either. Very few people realize this lack of control.
Post reply on HN