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

Reasons not to use Facebook

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 376 posts

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#141

Post by gbog »

detaro wrote: post #103
gbog wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of RMS opinions are extreme, because they take to an unbearable point some consequence of some ideology. For example refusing to have kids is extreme, most people cannot afford psychologically to not have kids. But RMS opinions about Facebook are not extreme, he doesn't propose to refuse to have friends who are using Facebook, for example. He says just don't use it, it's common sense, just like don't eat fast fo…

"Don't use Facebook" is currently not common sense. Many people are on Facebook and have thought about all these arguments and decided it is worth it to them. (In the meantime, fewer people seem to consider it common sense to be on Facebook, at least it seems to me less and less people are surprised if someone doesn't use it)

Well, I'm reading the Histoire de la Revolution Francaise (Michelet) right now, and something very stunning is that everyone, even the most faithful revolutionnaries, was still "royalist" in 1790. They all had "thought about all these arguments and decided it is worth it to them", because of perceived "common sense". Being a republican was considered extreme even in the left wing of the nascent Assemblee Nationale. And a few month later, it became obvious that monarchy needed to be definitely removed from the Nation, and "common sense" changed to the opposite. So the real common sense (i.e. the "right way to think about it") was to be republican.

Another example is abolition of death penalty in France by Mitterand: right now we French/Europeans believe it is very barbarian to still have Justice use this gothic expedient, and rightly so if you ask me. But just before its abolition polls showed most people opposed the abolition. A new, better "common sense" replaced an old habit falsy believed to follow "common sense".

So back to Facebook: right now most people do not know it, but it is not unlikely that the retrospective "common sense" of the future will be to avoid Facebook today. And I think a much saner regulation on what can be advertised and sold as food to human being in the US will also be retrospective common sense. And not driving cars is also common sense. The list is quite long...

[edited typos and grammar]

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#142

Post by jsmthrowaway »

Finbel wrote: post #138
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get annoyed by this because Stallman wasn't exactly predicting a hurricane, here. It's like making a conclusion about Ukraine. Nobody can prove it, but most people infer. Certainly since 641A and other even older signals those who pay attention received, the possibility of total surveillance was plainly apparent. The people who laughed it off were merely banking on the morality of government, but it was not a surpr…

"Many people made such claims long before he did." Could you give an example? I also think it's dangerous to say that we shouldn't act because we are almost entirely powerless in representative government. Same argument could have been made against civil rights and suffrage movements throughout history.

I think it requires a bare minimum of effort to enumerate the scores of commentators who predicted the surveillance state and the need for opsec, because it's in the bedrock of the computer security community itself. One needed only attend DEFCON, especially after 641A, to hear enough about surveillance and countersurveillance to last a lifetime.

Hippies, free software, counterculture, copyleft, cypherpunks. All of that shares the same DNA. Stallman represents that culture sharpened to a point, and it's been the basic tenet of all of it that government does not have our best interest at heart. Cypherpunks exist, arguably, because of it. That'd be the example I'd offer, perhaps even that consumer cryptography itself exists.

I also didn't say that. You added a bit. I disagree with the addition.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#143

Post by _ak »

joeyspn wrote: post #120
MCRed wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example? For instance, I was aware of Stallman in the 1980s, read his writings back then, didn't think they were correct, and the future he predicted has not come to be. Yes there are some of us who are that old. Specifically, he said that without the virility of his license, there would be no free/open source software and that all software would be locked down and proprietary. The entire open source…

Here's a funny one: Stallman came to my uni to give a speech to CompSci alumni 10 years ago, and he told the audience that he didn't own a cellphone, cos phones were being used to track people. He also talked about the backdoors in several OS's. Everybody was laughing at his words. We're talking 10 years ago. Few months ago remembering this speech with old uni mates we talked about how damn right that excentric man w…

Of course phones were used to track people 10 years ago. And it wasn't even a secret. Location-based services were the hot shit back then for mobile carriers (at least in Europe).

Making that to be a big conspiracy to infringe upon everybody's freedom and privacy is what makes Stallman's position so ridiculous. It always sounds like the rambling of a technophobic. No, that's not entirely true. Like the rambling of an old man who wants computing and technology in general to be exactly like it was in the 70's when he was sharing a mainframe with his pals at uni, and who can't think of anything more innovative than that.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#144

Post by drinchev »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #131
joeyspn wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a funny one: Stallman came to my uni to give a speech to CompSci alumni 10 years ago, and he told the audience that he didn't own a cellphone, cos phones were being used to track people. He also talked about the backdoors in several OS's. Everybody was laughing at his words. We're talking 10 years ago. Few months ago remembering this speech with old uni mates we talked about how damn right that excentric man w…

I get annoyed by this because Stallman wasn't exactly predicting a hurricane, here. It's like making a conclusion about Ukraine. Nobody can prove it, but most people infer. Certainly since 641A and other even older signals those who pay attention received, the possibility of total surveillance was plainly apparent. The people who laughed it off were merely banking on the morality of government, but it was not a surpr…

> It's like making a conclusion about Ukraine

I totally don't agree. Every Ukrainian can tell you what actually is happening. Media on the other hand are different story. They pretend some things aren't real and other are real ( depending on the country's origin opinion ).

I'm not gonna pretend I know exactly what is happening there, but I know a lot, a lot of Ukrainians ( here in Berlin ) that most certainly can tell you the story in a sustainable way that matches all the dots.

I don't want to sacrifice those hundreds of people on that Malaysian airplane that vanished, because "nobody knows what is happening". Sorry.

For the other part of your comment I mostly agree.

P.S. I don't want to do politics in HN, that's why I didn't write my opinion.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#145

Post by xxxyy »

blawa wrote: post #99
paulsecwhatt wrote: post #45

I honestly don't understand why people value Stallman's opinions on these matters so highly. I completely disagree with him on essentially everything he writes about these topics. Granted, he's an incredible programmer who contributed immensely to the development of our modern operating systems and the tools we use, and people here love to bring that up ("what - you DON'T KNOW WHO STALLMAN IS? SHAME? HOW DARE YOU CRI…

Oh well, just what I was fearing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201896 In 2 mins, you're the top comment How about actually disproving his arguments one by one. The world is not black and white is a bad statement to make. How about your pull up your panties and try to make it better, rather than giving useless arguments.

This thread shows the big thing that is wrong with today's HN.

There is a guy presenting a list of 49 arguments against using a service that is used by one billion people globally. Some of them are pretty good, some more sucky than the others. Yet, the discussion focuses only on the person. It's like the people here could not process the raw facts and derive their own conclusions, and had to fall back to their emotional brains. Certainly not a thing I would expect from HN community.

There is a really long way from this attitude to the PG's essay. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#146

Post by wanda »

fit2rule wrote: post #107
MCRed wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example? For instance, I was aware of Stallman in the 1980s, read his writings back then, didn't think they were correct, and the future he predicted has not come to be. Yes there are some of us who are that old. Specifically, he said that without the virility of his license, there would be no free/open source software and that all software would be locked down and proprietary. The entire open source…

Stallman predicted the total surveillance state, and warned of the very dire circumstances it put us all in.

I think the total surveillance state was a prediction made decades before Stallman. Or are we just ignoring acience fiction authors and philosophers?

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#147

Post by _ak »

tree_of_item wrote: post #35
gaadd33 wrote: post #7

> Algorithmic filtering can affect history, not just hide history. Facebook's filtering algorithm suppressed news about the thug riot in Ferguson until after it became national news. Calling all of the protestors in Ferguson "thugs" seems pretty off base. I'm surprised he characterized everyone there like that when his previous few points seemed to be in favor of the ability to protest the government. I guess he only…

You misunderstood, he's calling the cops thugs, not the protestors. If you read the rest of his website you will see that he refers to police as "thugs" regularly: > US citizens: call on Obama to curb militarization of thugs. > Everyone, call on Pasco to fire and prosecute the killer thugs > "Flood Wall Street" protesters have been acquitted of charges; the thugs' order for them to disperse was ruled unconstitutional…

And that is one reason why he is so terrible at communication. Nobody understands what he really means in that particular case, unless you were able to derive his specific meaning of "thug" from his previous writings. Inventing your own private sociolect and using it in published texts is a bad idea.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#148

Post by jsmthrowaway »

drinchev wrote: post #144
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get annoyed by this because Stallman wasn't exactly predicting a hurricane, here. It's like making a conclusion about Ukraine. Nobody can prove it, but most people infer. Certainly since 641A and other even older signals those who pay attention received, the possibility of total surveillance was plainly apparent. The people who laughed it off were merely banking on the morality of government, but it was not a surpr…

> It's like making a conclusion about Ukraine I totally don't agree. Every Ukrainian can tell you what actually is happening. Media on the other hand are different story. They pretend some things aren't real and other are real ( depending on the country's origin opinion ). I'm not gonna pretend I know exactly what is happening there, but I know a lot, a lot of Ukrainians ( here in Berlin ) that most certainly can tel…

Right. You actually supported my point. The Ukraine thing was an aside and I don't want to open it up (much like you), but as you say, most Ukrainians can say what is happening. But can they prove it? The media aspect corresponds to the proof of the thing. I think short of a signature on an order to shoot down the airliner, there will always be just enough doubt to keep the nearly obvious conclusion at arm's length.

We said the same thing in different ways, because surveillance was almost identical. We all knew. We could explain it, probably even whiteboard it. But we had no way to show the world in 30 seconds without any ambiguity. Snowden gave us that. The government records your phone calls. Here's the unequivocal proof. Bam. Now you have peoples' attention, and it's turning out not even that is enough.

Neither of us are sacrificing anyone, rest assured.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#149

Post by junto »

blawa wrote: post #97
junto wrote: post #96

Facebook is like a dentist. The benefit is that you get to spy on old friends who aren't really friends anymore, but you have to remember that a) the dentist is going to cause you pain, and b) he's going to invoice for for the pleasure of doing so. The difference is that the dentist has your best interests at heart, whilst Facebook has its own best interests as its primary focus, its customers secondary, and hint hin…

Thank you, I was fearing I'll see an ad-hominem argument criticizing Stallman and thereby nullifying the arguments while actually not saying anything against the arguments. Your points are right, and personally, I don't see a reason to follow people who're not friends anymore

My biggest problem with Facebook is that my contact details are uploaded to Facebook by my "friends" without my permission. I choose not to he Facebook user but people I know are persistently sharing my contact details with them and I assume even my contact details photo which they can later match using facial recognition to other photos uploaded by friends without my permission.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#150

Post by Dramatize »

jfoster wrote: post #47

I view my decision to use Facebook as a transaction. Sure, I lose some "privacy", but I also get a lot of value in return. I use quotes around "privacy" because I'm not sure I understand it the same way that Facebook critics do. When I'm using a changeroom, I expect privacy. When I take on a pseudonym and don't identify myself by name, I expect privacy. When I'm knowingly uploading photos that I am happy for the worl…

I agree. I don't understand what the issue is. I know that anything I add to Facebook will be used to sell advertising to me(I use AdBlock).

The best feature of Facebook is groups. It's the easiest way to keep up to date with my gym group, motorcycle group etc.

Post reply on HN