Reasons not to use Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#181

Post by tajen » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 11:09 AM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #171

_ak wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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). Bullshit; I remember trying to instill the same point to techies 7 years ago and a majority of technically competent people would say that, while possible, is not certain . Hindsight is 20-20.

Even today, very few people accept to believe that the NSA actually leverages their technology to do mass tracking. Few people have an idea of the scale of their operations actually. Most of them now think they have the gear, but that they only leverage it in state investigations.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#182

Post by amirmc » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 11:10 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #80

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…

I'm with you. Seems like FUD here with this post, there are a few decent ideas about privacy but its a social network and used for connecting to people. Maybe they can relax the real name policy some more but I have plenty of friends that don't use their actual real/legal name and never had a problem. There are effective privacy controls in place now and things like being served ads is such a silly issue to complain…

> "... it's a business that needs to make money, how else is that supposed to happen?"

This attitude is what's wrong. Exxon also needs to make money so maybe we should cut them some slack around oil spills. So does Foxconn, so let's not badger them about employment practices. Etc.

To your point about how they are supposed to make money. I dunno, innovate on business models, maybe? Advertising has been a driving force for mass-consumer web services and it would be healthy to have alternatives.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#183

Post by michaelmior » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 11:10 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #62

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…

> Does this make his opinion on Facebook or privacy or freedom any more correct or valid? No. And whose opinions are correct on the topic? Who should we listen to then? Opinions are opionions and we can all evaluate them. Hopefully we can evaluate them objectively regardless who came up with them. > he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies. He doesn't huh. Ok, if it is so obvio…

You said that your editor is free software, meaning that no one made money on you using it. I'm not sure how this refutes the point about a "_viable_ company." (Given that viable necessarily includes making money.)

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#184

Post by michaelmior » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 11:11 AM UTC

hobs wrote: post #48

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…

There is literally 100 different links on that page, and you disagree with all of them? Stallman is an ideologue 100%, but if I had to choose Facebook or Stallman, I know which side I am on. (and I dont produce OSS or follow their belief system) Facebook wants a real name because it makes them money more readily when they can identify you more easily and determine your value, not whatever "a better social network" me…

Actually, there's literally 78 different links on that page ;)

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#185

Post by j42 » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 11:18 AM UTC

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.

Interestingly, though, those movements very much relied on their cohesiveness around a single, fundamental grievance.

Eventually they reached a 'cultural' tipping point and that brought about cascades of change.

Currently the field looks a bit different, as there's been an exponential growth in both the quantity of information, and the effectiveness of its delivery (via the media, technology) at lower costs.

This is, of course, not an argument in favor of inaction... I just think we should be wary of the fact that it's now a lot easier for capital to change culture (by way of advertising and private-interest media) than it is for culture to rally around a sustained idea long enough to produce legislative change.

(And remember a lot of these forces work in both directions, however I do believe the biggest benefits of technologies' reach will always be concentrated among those with capital)

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#186

Post by killerpopiller » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 11:20 AM UTC

stinos wrote: post #156

killerpopiller wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and still you talk about him like a pariah. I really don't get the resentiment here about RS. What has he done to you americans? Bursting the bubble of harmless tech? I say americans cause I am sure, if we would make a poll, those who disregard RS points, without even try to proof the opposite, seem to be US. What if Peter Thiel or Paul Graham would have compiled such a list. Cheering waves of agreement I figure.

You've got it wrong. Not sure why you think I'm talking about him like a pariah but that is certainly not my intent. I don't treat him, or anybody else I barely know, in a special way; especially not like a pariah. I don't understand how you think based just on what I wrote that I have any special feelings in any directions about Stallman? In fact I barely read any articles from Stallman nor know much about him. Let…

@US to me the entire thread seems like a reflex of denial. How else would this list enounter so much ignorance? The lack of substance in the arguments reminds me of reddit rather than the typical HN, which makes this topic special and american-centered, where patriotic feelings seems to be involved. We are the good guys, so to speak: Our tech wouldn't spy, censor and snitch on you.

@pariah It was my reading/interpretation that you seemed surprised about RS actually having valid points. You state that the OP-troll disagreement "is too strong". Well, the OP didn't disagree, OP just made wild comparisons without commenting the issues, babbling something about Husain Bolt and becoming the top comment. There we are back at my @US claim. This reads like a denial.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#187

Post by tomp » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 11:21 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #108

Frondo wrote: post #33

My problem with essays like this is that they don't address the more critical underlying point: most people don't recognize privacy as a human right, and most people don't realize why privacy is important and worth protecting. To most people, "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" sounds reasonable . That's the deeper problem at work here. With more people on board to why privacy matters, articles l…

~400 million people in EU disagree with you; that's one jurisdiction where privacy is a human right, and this is not just some abstract concept but the basis of legislation you can invoke to force companies to cough up the data they have on you and/or demand it be scrubbed from their databases, even if you originally shared it voluntarily.

No we don't. I personally think that EU's approach to privacy, especially when it comes to the internet (e.g. "right to be forgotten", "cookie law"), is completely fucked up. While EU's dysfunctional governing game (i.e. multiple countries with immensely different cultures, goals, histories and levels of development trying to act in unison) explains such things as the tax loopholes, no freedom of speech and the Euro, even this can't explain the mistakes in internet laws.

Furthermore, history will not be on EU's side in this regard. Right to be forgotten and restrictive data storing laws will have to be revoked eventually (when we have robots - "Remind me what I was talking about on that dinner during Mauritius vacations!" "I'm sorry Jessica, that was more than 3 years ago, I don't remember."). Euro won't survive without a fiscal union / federation (like the US).

Even the restrictions of data export don't help us much - sure, the companies legally can't export data to the US, but don't worry, GCHQ will!

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#188

Post by icebraining » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 11:21 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #180

icebraining wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge numbers of couples in Europe, Japan, Korea, etc have decided to not have kids, so clearly they can "afford" to not have them. Unless you can show a link between not having kids and having psychological problems (and I don't mind just a simple correlation on the whole society, I mean per couple), I'd say that's just like, your opinion, man.

> Huge numbers of couples in Europe, Japan, Korea, etc have decided to not have kids, so clearly they can "afford" to not have them. Do you have any proof of this? IMO, the declining birth rate is more of a consequence of a huge number of couples deciding to only have one child (so one child per 2 people -> eventual extinction).

Among women born in 1960, 17% in the U.S. were childless at approximately age 40, compared with 22% in the United Kingdom, 19% in Finland and the Netherlands, and 17% in Italy and Ireland. Rates ranged from 12% to 14% for Spain, Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Sweden, and from 7% to 11% for several Eastern European countries and Iceland.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-a...

The population of childless aged couples, especially women, is expected to grow rapidly. In Italy and the US, for example, the population of childless women aged 65 or older is expected to nearly quadruple over the next four decades.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/childless-choice

Statistics in the UK for women by age (e.g. 20% for age 50):

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc211/i...

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#189

Post by realusername » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 11:23 AM UTC

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…

There is not only the privacy inside Facebook but also outside facebook. People are generally aware of what they give inside Facebook but I'm not sure most people expect Facebook to store their entire web history with dodgy techniques.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#190

Post by Aoyagi » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 11:26 AM UTC

GigabyteCoin wrote: post #18

A friend of mine was turned off of a potentially new employee the other day because the candidate exclaimed that they recognized a customer from their instagram profile and that they followed it, loved it, etc. The customer was obviously embarrased, exclaimed that he had not used instagram in over a year, and promptly left the store. This left an uneasy feeling in my friend (the store owner). Which confused me to be…

I believe a lot of people think Internet is an entirely different dimension. "What happens on the Internet stays on the Internet" or something.