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

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

#251

Post by logjam » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 5:26 AM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #52

waqf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't understand that comment, either. Was your argument "he's right, but nobody agrees with him, so he's wrong"?

You're being purposefully obtuse at this point. Maybe: "Perhaps someone who has such narrow and specialized communication needs that they need to browse the web via email isn't in the best position to be dictating what communication methods the world at large should use". Boiled down futher: "What's good (and bad) for one person with specific needs isn't the same for everyone else".

You just conflated "need" with "choose" to make what is either an obtuse or dishonest point for your own purposes. Which is it?

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

#252

Post by logjam » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 5:44 AM UTC

partytime wrote: post #78

Karunamon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being purposefully obtuse at this point. Maybe: "Perhaps someone who has such narrow and specialized communication needs that they need to browse the web via email isn't in the best position to be dictating what communication methods the world at large should use". Boiled down futher: "What's good (and bad) for one person with specific needs isn't the same for everyone else".

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Thanks.

No, that's not what you were getting at, at all.

You made nothing more than an ad hominem attack. First you wanted us to discount Stallman's argument because of...wait for it...the way he reads web pages.

Second you wanted us to discount Stallman's argument because "he's so far off the page from the vast bulk of humanity (in terms of how he communicates)".

Can't imagine how such a mess at communicating and someone so very far off the page keeps duping all those folks who keep inviting him to speak (as well as the folks who gave him the ACM Grace Hopper Award, a MacArthur Foundation fellowship, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneer award, the Takeda Award for Social/Economic Betterment, andseveral honorary doctorates):

http://www.fsf.org/events/rms-speeches.html

Mar 01, Madrid, Spain "Por una sociedad digital libre" Mar 07, Sunnyvale, CA "Copyright vs. Community" Mar 13, Republic of Singapore "Free Software and Your Freedom" Mar 14, Republic of Singapore "For a Free Digital Society" Mar 27, New York, NY "For a Free Digital Society" Mar 29, West Lafayette, IN "The Free Software Movement" Apr 03, Ashland, OR "Copyright vs. Community" Apr 04, Ashland, OR "For a Free Digital Society" Jul 10, Dresden, Germany "The Free Software Movement"

Some communicator.

Now. Do you actually have anything at all to say about Stallman's actual argument(s) in that thread? Did you even read them?

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

#253

Post by uniclaude » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 5:52 AM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #99

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…

Because, clearly, your wants indicate what's important for civilization? Yes, there's a lot wrong with Facebook, but you do realize that you act exactly like those kids in camp - if people don't enjoy what you do, or have the same preferences you do, there's something messed up about them. Maybe most people don't want private space, I don't know. It's certainly a good idea to point out what the privacy implications o…

You make a good point. One should not decide what's important for civilization just because of what he likes or not.

Now, about your vision of privacy for the future, let's just say that you may have some people that agree with you at Girls Around Me. It also look like they thought privacy didn't matter to people.

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

#254

Post by logjam » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 5:58 AM UTC

3143 wrote: post #131

babarock wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's only admirable if you agree with those convictions. Otherwise you have to end up admiring people like the Westboro Baptists and the KKK.

False equivalence. But do go ahead and give us your argument for how hypocrisy is more admirable.

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

#255

Post by whichdan » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 5:58 AM UTC

fl3tch wrote: post #196

koeselitz wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow the first link on the page you linked to there ("I don't use it") there is a brief discussion of his view of Gmail and Google+: "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 (…

One problem with the privacy-protectionist view is that half of my email recipients use one of the three major email services (Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo Mail), so even if I decided not to use them, half of my email would end up on their servers. Taking that into consideration, and adding the fact that I haven't found an email service that I've liked within an order of magnitude of Gmail, it doesn't make sense to boycott…

Only half?

(I wish I was joking.)

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

#256

Post by shad0wfax » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 6:02 AM UTC

noduerme wrote: post #113

pavanky wrote: post #73

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,…

It is not being imposed up on. If you are on FB, it is a system you are willing to participate in. You are not obligated to communicate either way.

An analogy that I can think of in the real world similar to what you are saying is, when I go to the mall, I like a hassle free shopping. Which means, I don't like to be bothered by sales/stores clerk. When I am at Macy's it is just a matter of time when a store clerk walks up to me to find out if I am finding everything allright. Now I can go ahead and be rude to that person considering he/she is intruding, or fake to be nice to quickly move on.

The point is going to the mall was my decision and I chose to go, very aware of what the system has. You can't be bothered about what someone else thinks when you really don't care much about them. Ignoring a friend request is a valid option.

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

#257

Post by pyre » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 7:09 AM UTC

ShirtlessRod wrote: post #219

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…

In the same post you manage to call people who don't like Facebook "weird" and "behavioral outliers" while simultaneously saying it's all their fault because they endlessly go on about how they don't like Facebook. What about those who say nothing about it, yet still need to tolerate people like you calling them a "behavioral outlier"?

They don't exist, otherwise he'd have heard of them on Facebook!

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

#258

Post by pyre » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 7:11 AM UTC

tambourine_man wrote: post #244

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…

Look, our adult society is pretty good at accepting behavioral outliers Boy, do we disagree. Never before has political correctness and "fitting in" been so exalted. In fact Facebook is a direct consequence of this behavior. Consider that many people don't see Facebook as a privacy issue once they've weighed everything carefully and not because they're idiots. Not idiots, but completely ignorant as to what they are a…

  > Facebook is a direct consequence of this behavior

The only reason that people join Facebook is to prove how politically correct they are, or to 'fit in?' Really?

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

#259

Post by rbarooah » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 7:20 AM UTC

fudged wrote: post #166

koeselitz wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow the first link on the page you linked to there ("I don't use it") there is a brief discussion of his view of Gmail and Google+: "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 (…

Arguments against the Real Name policy are valid if all your thoughts, opinions, and actions all funnel through that one social network. In reality, however, there are many alternate forums for expressing your views with varying levels of anonymity, and I think that's a good thing! The freedom to choose anonymity between forums is great. I'm glad that certain networks stick to a real name policy.

This is not quite correct. It's not a binary. The existence of one weak alternative network wouldn't be enough. We need an actual plurality of active networks.

These issues are real when you have large organizations like Google and Facebook who stand a reasonable chance of extinguishing a significant part of the diversity.

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

#260

Post by pyre » Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 7:22 AM UTC

alain94040 wrote: post #192

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…

To many people, Facebook is the default communication channel Exactly. Many of us geeks have dreamed of improved e-mail clients, better to-do lists... but frankly for the average person, they want to hear from their kids and relatives, easily see pictures of birthdays. Guess what: Facebook is years ahead of email clients for that purpose. Come up with a better client if you want to, but understand that some people ha…

  > your decade-old technology [...] gets in the way

You're right! Here's some decade-old technologies that we should drop (they're 'decade-old', so they are obviously in the way!): TCP, IP, UDP, HTTP, FTP, SSH, etc...