211–220 of 376 posts
Here are just a few:
As someone who has never used Facebook, I often feel like I am talking to members of some sinister cult when I meet someone who asks me about Facebook and I say I don't use it. The surprise and weird eyes they give me really unnerves me, it's not just a website to some people, it has become a integral part of their life and has seeped into their mind. It has gotten to the point that I am deliberately rude about it, f…
Internalize this: Facebook has become as integral to communication as having a cell phone was in the last decade. If you met someone who didn't have a cell phone today (whether it be a smartphone or otherwise), wouldn't you be surprised? That's the same surprise people are giving you.
That's their perspective and it's not unreasonable.
Brexit for Facebook - really? Is that all we learned from this recent referendum? Yes, it is weird to have this much personal information about so many people in the world in the hands of a corporation. But Facebook serves a real need - to connect. And they do it well. The problem is real - we need to have a non-commercial entity run this. But if Facebook dies tomorrow another company will take its place. How do we s…
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"…
I do not use "democrap" or "republicant", as they do not promote the discussion or understanding in any way. However, I did adopt Stallman's "Copy Restriction" (instead of "Copy Protection") and "Digital Restriction Management" (instead of "Digital Right Management") - because they are a much better description of what the concept actually is for 99% of the people. I started doing this after I told someone that I wil…
Then you have claiming Win32 is a subliminal message about winning rather than an abbreviation for Windows...
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"…
>Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty
The GNU copyleft (another neologism) is very specific, and means something like "irrevocably community-assigned copyright."
If instead of calling it free, he had called it irrevocably community-assigned copyright, today there would be no free Linux, Debian, etc ecosystem.
While you personally might think that issues can be decided purely on their merits, the facts speak otherwise. You've listed an example.
This is not an academic philosophical journal. This is the real world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hate this argument. Sure, everyone knows that Facebook makes money by selling advertisers access to targeted users. However, it isn't like users aren't getting something in return for this. Users of facebook aren't 'useds', they are participants in a transaction. They are given a service they enjoy, and in return they grant their eyeballs for ads, and their data for targeting those ads. Now, we can argue whe…
You can hate the argument all you like; although such an emotionally charged term being levelled against the argument itself is curious but probably not particularly informative. It also doesn't change the way Facebook violates norms of privacy in a number of ways that should give people pause for thought, at any rate. RMS has put forward excellent reasons that detract from the use of the platform.
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"…
Yes yes, let's focus on the superficial components of his arguments via false equivalences and ignore the very legitimate criticisms he makes. RMS argues like an idiot therefore Facebook is probably blameless. Progress.
As much as people try to claim that the medium doesn't matter, it does, a lot. Stallman is a poor user of the mediums he is given, and as such, the points made are difficult to discuss. Were he to use less slanted language, and stick to the facts, he would be more effective in getting his point across, and would not open himself, or his arguments, to such criticism.
As someone who has never used Facebook, I often feel like I am talking to members of some sinister cult when I meet someone who asks me about Facebook and I say I don't use it. The surprise and weird eyes they give me really unnerves me, it's not just a website to some people, it has become a integral part of their life and has seeped into their mind. It has gotten to the point that I am deliberately rude about it, f…
Look, people are surprised because Facebook has become an integral way to communicate with someone whether it be via chat with messenger or as a broadcast message via a newsfeed post. Internalize this: Facebook has become as integral to communication as having a cell phone was in the last decade. If you met someone who didn't have a cell phone today (whether it be a smartphone or otherwise), wouldn't you be surprised…
Facebook is a whole new activity that never really existed before, it's much more than just "communication". It seems more about following other peoples lives in a rather obsessive and voyeuristic way (and broadcasting your own), and has this "club" or "cult" feeling about it.
If someone told me they didn't have a cellphone, yes I would be surprised, but more like "how do you get by?" rather than "who is this suspicious outsider?".
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"…
What strikes me here in particular is that this article is mirroring most of my own reasons for being uncomfortable with Facebook, but I still find myself wanting to disagree with him. The rhetorical style makes him come across as a bully, and on a gut level I don't like to side with bullies. So I'd like to say that after some more measured, thoughtful reflection I come around to his side. But I don't. The enemy of m…
Can you give some examples from the text? Like you are expressing frustration over something but what is it? It's a long list of arguments with links to supporting articles. I don't understand what your complaint is.
I'll bet Zuckerberg and countless Facebook employees have used software written by Stallman. At the risk of being wrong, I'd even go so far as to say they need this software. But does Stallman ever need to use software written by Zuckerberg or Facebook employees? Personalities and errors in judgment aside, give respect and credit where it is due. I have never needed Facebook's software. And I doubt I ever will. From…
Nobody needs GNU software; they can use FreeBSD which is just as good. They can also use clang and lldb instead of gcc and gdb. You can debate about whether those would have existed in their present form without the leadership of the FSF, but then you'd be making a different argument. By the way, I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that Stallman brought us the Internet but I can't see how that could possibly be t…
No. The opposite. I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that besides free open source software, improvements in the network allow companies like Facebook to grow as big as they are.
Before clang, FreeBSD used gcc. I'm actually not a GNU/Linux user; I wish BSD did not have to use gcc, but for as long as I've been a user, release engineering has always used gcc. I would personally prefer to use something like pcc as opposed to clang.
Today, lots of companies use GNU software, when they could just as easily use BSD. And many BSD users still need gcc to compile their OS. Not how I expected things to turn out but attacking Stallman makes little sense at this point.
Instead, maybe we should be thanking him.
Companies like Facebook offer very little while taking all our personal information for their commercial use, while open source projects like BSD and GNU continue to offer a great deal, without requiring so much as an account or password, much less tracking our every move.