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

Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 376 posts

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#181

Post by relaytheurgency »

programmarchy wrote: post #101
mwfunk wrote: post #34

If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…

Your entire post consists of red herrings / ad hom, and you failed to make a single argument or counter any of the points he made in the article.

Is disagreeing with the style of someone's rhetoric really the same as an attack on the person? The parent comment is making the point that Stallman uses exclusionary tactics while speaking and that they are a turn off if you aren't already a convert. I think it's a cogent point and I think it applies in a more general sense to a lot of lazy techniques employed by those who seek to be divisive.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#182

Post by alkonaut »

I'd give anything to switch social network but I'm not keen on switching to one where my friends aren't. So no matter how much I despise Facebook, today I can't really be without it. I'd literally miss every single social event because it has come to the point where no one even imagines that someone wouldn't use FB.

I wish someone would just set up a free/open network by just stealing users social graph from Facebook outright and having people "migrate" to the new one (and also presenting FB data in the new apps feed during a transition period).

This is of course an attack on everything that Facebook is, so naturally this new social network would have to be decentralized and the creators would have to be pretty low key.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#183

Post by yuhong »

relaytheurgency wrote: post #177
yuhong wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about "undemocratic party" for the Democratic party?

It's childish. I don't understand why people try to do this. The organization is called the Democratic party. It is not clever to change the name as some kind of shorthand for your own personal opinion.

To be honest, the name dates back to at least decades ago.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#184

Post by dublinben »

bikamonki wrote: post #167

I was a used a few months ago until I just quit. I enjoy trail running and time-permitting I try to do 5-7 races per year. This year I totally missed 2 races b/c I was not in the loop anymore. Organizers don't even have a website or newsletter anymore, just a FB page. Then I realized this is happening to businesses as well. They seem to ignore the fact that they are giving FB full control over its brand/audience. Any…

>Organizers don't even have a website or newsletter anymore, just a FB page

This will only get worse, as long as we let it. If the members of a community refuse to participate in their Facebook "group" or "event" page, then they will have to publish that information somewhere else.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#185

Post by tim333 »

nikcub wrote: post #72

If you want to run Facebook but want to be privacy conscious (any more suggestions? - this is what I do): 1. Create a separate browser profile for accessing Facebook 2. Run uBlock Origin 3. Don't install the mobile apps - use the mobile web interface 4. Turn your Facebook privacy settings up to 11 (the new max privacy settings are actually good/reasonable) - you can set it up so that you can't be found in search[0],…

>any more suggestions?

Alternatively - this is approximately what I do:

1. Set things to pretty public

2. Only post stuff you don't mind the public seeing in the same way you would post on HN, twitter or a blog.

If you want to tell people something in private don't use Facebook.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#186

Post by superobserver »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #180
oldmanjay wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The point is well understood and so poorly expressed that is actually repellent. It's not the "somebody" so much as the way "somebody" insists on using transparently manipulative rhetoric. It's very off-putting even to those of us who agree.

Except that when it's in-your-face transparent, it cannot really be manipulative. What actually is manipulative is how the common use of words is being influenced by think tanks, marketing companies and the like so that you actually feel repelled when RMS uses language in a way that is in fact more objectively descriptive of reality because it deviates from the norm that has been established.

This reminds me of how "propaganda" was euphemised as "public relations".

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#187

Post by Gorgor »

Arnavion wrote: post #125
Gorgor wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrap and the like are simply derogatory terms. And so are abbreviations like M$ for Microsoft or the German term Windoof (could be translated as Windumb) for Windows. But this is not the kind of terms Stallman uses. Instead, he usually tells you why he uses a specific term and I have yet to come across a case where he doesn't have a point with his term. Microsoft can be regarded as „Malware“, because it does thin…

>But this is not the kind of terms Stallman uses. https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/FAQ.html#windows_woe32 >What does Woe32 mean? >“Woe32” denotes the Windows 32-bit operating systems for x86: Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista and Windows 95/98/ME. Microsoft uses the term “Win32” to denote these; this is a psychological trick in order to make everyone believe that these OSes are a “win” for the user. However, for most user…

Good find. I didn't know about that one.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#188

Post by xiaoma »

vacri wrote: post #166
geff82 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS, to some extend, is like the pope. He often says strange things, where many people do not instantly agree. But he won't change his message just to please you, which is what we are used to get from most people, especially politicians. You can count on him and his, at heart, very humanist views. I recently was at one of his keynotes, and we all, including me, could only laugh at his over-and-over usage of words lik…

The problem is that saying "Swindle" instead of "Kindle" works when he's talking to people who already agree with him, but is seen as adolescent crap by people who don't agree with or don't understand his message. It's preaching to the choir. "Digital Restrictions Management" is a good semantic switcheroo, but "Swindle" is just name-calling. I've read his reasons for it, but really, it just makes it harder for people…

He's not trying to be the bridge. He is the standard bearer.

In the 90s, others such as ESR and Linus were the bridges. Stallman has always been the idealist who will hold firm to his ideal. Back in the day, like you, I thought he was extreme and kind of silly. ESR had a far more socially acceptable and commercially palatable message (which is pretty shocking in retrospect, considering the direction his writing and politics have taken).

Nearly 20 years later, it's clear that Stallman is almost certain to be a historical figure remembered hundreds of years from now. His older "crazy" pieces like The right to read look more prophetic by the day. If nothing else, his utter disregard of popular views has made him free to speak truths that others can't.

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#189

Post by tim333 »

dlnovell wrote: post #32

Recently my girlfriend discovered the depth of the program FB started to listen to the microphone, even if the app isn't on. She never installed the FB app on her new phone. Multiple times in the last month, some VERY specific topic of conversation IRL has shown up as an ad in her FB stream. Most recently, a coworker told her about a "Custom Martin" guitar he had just bought. Later that day there was an ad for a cust…

Facebook denies it, for what it's worth:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2016/06/07/facebook...

Re: Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook

#190

Post by carapace »

Facebook is one of the single most creepy things here in the future. I think if you time-travelled back to, say, the '50's and tried to explain FB to people they would just not believe you. They would think that aliens had brain-washed people before they'd believe that millions of people just blithely hand their personal lives to a third-party.
Post reply on HN