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

Stallman: "Facebook is an international parasitism project."

lists.csail.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 300 posts

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

#221

Post by paulhauggis »

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…

"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."

It sounds like you are anti-social. I didn't like everything about camp, but to say there are no redeeming qualities just sounds a bit suspicious to me. Anti-social people don't like Facebook because everything about it is social.

"The most oppressive and authoritarian thing about it is, at root, that most people appear to enjoy it and not see any problems with it, while you view it as this heinous violation of your freedom and imposition on your private space. The worst thing about it is that sinking feeling that no one cares what you think."

It's not that bad. The government isn't forcing you to use Facebook at the threat of death. You do have a choice. You can choose not to use Facebook. Many people do this.

Think about it this way:

Apple is the same way. They control all app distribution and can crush your app if they see fit. Apple has always controlled the hardware and software. This is more controlling than Microsoft. But there are tons of people that develop for the platform.

Google is the same way. If you lose major standing on the search engine, your sales will suffer as a result.

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

#222

Post by gdubs »

coffeemug wrote: post #149
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…

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…

People in History who have been victims of fascism probably didn't see it coming. To say that they were fools or should have known better would be wrong, so it can't be that simple. Whether you agree with Stallman or not, it's a giant elephant in the room. That is, I think, why it made the front page.

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

#223

Post by dbecker »

niels_olson wrote: post #165
VMG wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most oppressive and authoritarian thing about it is, at root, that most people appear to enjoy it and not see any problems with it, while you view it as this heinous violation of your freedom and imposition on your private space. While many of my friends enjoy Facebook and I'm still to lazy to upload a profile image and mainly use it to find out where the next birthday party is located, I really can't say that…

> Some people just like camp And that, my friend, is the tyranny of the majority. It is the people who just like things the way they are who opt willfully to take the side of the-way-is. You attacked, wrote a comment, preserving the status quo simply because you happen to find yourself with that preference, rather than considering the much more existential plight of the minority.

I don't think I understood what you are saying. But, would you suggest that by using (and enjoying) fb, I am oppressing people who don't want to use it?

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

#224

Post by pork »

marshallp wrote: post #42

At this point facebook is just a branch of the NSA and CIA. They're laughing it up while the clueless kid Zuckerberg thinks he's creating "a social graph". How about an "open" social graph you jackass - you know, THE WEB. Hopefully governments step in to break up this evil oonopoly that's on it's way to another microsoft, AT&T, Standard Oil. However, it might too late already, since the NSA and CIA desperately want f…

I don't normally indulge trolls, but you're priceless! So the NSA and CIA (the government) covertly control and encourage Facebook, but you want the same government to save you from this "evil"? Cognitive dissonance much?

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

#225

Post by dbecker »

noduerme wrote: post #60
joedev wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is a "heinous violation of your freedom and imposition on your private space". Would you care to elaborate? Which of your freedom(s) is being violated? What of your private space is being imposed upon?

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. To not know what other people were doing, or have them know what I'm doing. To be able to quietly tune the world out and focus on things. Then, of course, my right to own images of myself, to keep my location private, to register genuine surprise, in person, when I find out one of my friends is en…

Signing up for facebook and telling people what you are doing prevents you from keeping this info private.

But writing letters does the same thing, and I don't see people complaining about pen and paper.

It's a shame that FB privacy settings are confusing (and ever changing), but aside from that, why blame the communication medium for what you choose to say (or not say) with it.

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

#226

Post by feralchimp »

joering2 wrote: post #69
feralchimp wrote: post #33

I was an outspoken Facebook-hater for a long time. Perhaps my most quotable moment on HN to date was saying "I have no love for their product or their business model, but their engineering is diesel." My wife recently convinced me to give it another try. I didn't use my complete name, and was judicious about the information I associated with my profile. And yet, I proceeded to connect in a deep and healthy way with s…

> connect in a deep and healthy way with some people that I'd fallen out of touch with You must have had fallen out of touch for a reason, hadn't you? I think this is the major reason why I am not using Facebook to find and connect with my old friends. If those connection would have been worth keeping up with, I am sure I wouldn't have lost them at the first place. Now, of course there are stories when some family me…

This might be one of the rare cases where "you'll understand when you're older" is the most elegant and truthful response available.

But I'll understand if that's not very satisfying, so...

Interpersonal connections just do not exist in some sort of static and immutable categorical hierarchy, wherein all those that share in the Platonic ideal of WORTH KEEPING are definitely kept above some threshold of positive health and repair, and those that do not are just as destined to fade naturally. If you're "sure that" you would recognize and maintain any connection that is worth keeping, then you're only correct insofar as the connection might not be worth maintaining for the other person. :)

The reason for this is that, in short, you can't see as far into the future as you think you can.

As you get older, you (hopefully) gain some perspectives that retroactively change the past. You occasionally notice important, even semi-profound things about people you used to know; things you had never really noticed before, that you could not have possibly noticed before because circumstances had not yet unearthed those facets of their character. High school isn't life. College isn't life. The first ten years of your career aren't life.

"Life changing" experience can come at any time, and it doesn't just change your life after the experience, but also reaches back into your experience of things that occured before.

drops mic

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

#227

Post by 18pfsmt »

Shivetya wrote: post #212
victork2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one think it's a great analogy (having been in a camp I can definitely say that I didn't enjoy it and I was rejected based on that). I silently deleted my facebook account about two years ago because I didn't like losing my time looking at stupid stuff. I found out that falling into the Facebook time vortex was too much of an inconvenience and the only way around that was to delete Facebook. Now when I say that…

I receive more grief from women I date for not having a facebook account than having a cheap ass cell phone. At work, since I am in IT, some coworkers express mock shock I do not have an account. Then there is the bombardment of expecting to have a LinkedIn account as well. People are far to quick to give up their privacy, I guess it comes down to the fact people want to be heard and noticed more listening and notici…

I'm in the exact same position as you are. I'm in my 30s, so it took a while, but even my friends in their 40s have given into the temptation (and perceived benefits).

I suspect it has to do with the digital voyeurism that others have subjected themselves to (and participate in), and they wish you to subject yourself to the same. I find it quite disconcerting, and this thread has helped me greatly.

My plan was to win the $600M mega millions lottery last week in order to finance a proper distributed social system. Alas,it did not pan out, so feature phone/ email will have to suffice for now.

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

#228

Post by davidhollander »

noduerme wrote: post #213
davidhollander wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To resummarize my position above: A 'violation of freedom' requires the use of force by an authority. A parent forcing a child to go somewhere in spite of their preferences is a 'violation of freedom'. A government forcing a citizen to go somewhere in spite of their preferences is a 'violation of freedom'. Neither the first case nor the second case are necessarily the same proportionality or equally 'heinous'. 'heino…

That people voluntarily gave facebook a temporary claim to certain inalienable rights is undeniable. What happened was that the userbase shifted and became larger, the power of the individual became weaker, and the rights and obligations vested in the company in the initial user agreement were eroded to the point of meaninglessness, without ongoing consent from the user. So at this point, your data is theirs. Moreove…

> no one who's signed up for it can ever free themselves from its grasp, nor their personal information from its database.

I've personally deleted all my personal information from my first Facebook account a few years ago. There were zero consequences for doing so. I didn't even loose any friends, so I put it back up after a year offline to make it easier for people to find my email address and phone number.

> My point was that group thinking leads to moral equivocation, tolerance for authoritarianism and overall civic rot, and that we're better off if more off-beat, free thinking, smart people decline their invitation to this behemoth, or burn it in effigy

Why does Facebook promote authoritarian group think and civic rot more than email, text message, instant message, twitter, voice mail, phone calls, television, and newspapers? Is social media in general or Facebook in particular more likely to promote "groupthink" and "civic rot" than older forms of media? How can we confirm or disprove this hypothesis? Do protest organizers using Facebook to orchestrate the Egyptian revolution provide evidence supporting or negating your hypothesis?

> chose to misinterpret the most basic of my references, "camp", to mean a nazi death camp, most likely means you either didn't read what I wrote or you were trolling.

My position regarding 'violation of freedom' is hopefully clear: even comparing Facebook to summer camp is hyperbolic. As innocent as summer camps are, they violate far more freedoms than Facebook. Attendance is compulsory, and as you pointed out, your freedom of speech and ability to dissent as an atheist was denied.

I believe we share the same concerns regarding groupthink and authoritarianism. I also enjoyed your prior allusion to Orwell. But like Orwell, I believe the most harm comes from imprecision in the meaning of language. I do not believe your definition of 'freedom' and 'heinous violation of freedom' allows one to differentiate between the acts of Facebook and the acts of full blown authoritarian governments with camps. That is, I believe your method of reasoning will actually make it harder for people to identify institutions that fall into the later category, which is why I posed the question as to whether this disservices those who have suffered under such institutions.

The alternate definition of freedom I proposed was that of John Locke. He used it to derive a principle in Two Treatises on Government for detecting when governance is illegitimate and may be overthrown. I believe adopting such a position regarding freedom will help further your goal of opposing authoritarian groupthink more so than your current method and organizational target.

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

#230

Post by 18pfsmt »

noduerme wrote: post #213
davidhollander wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To resummarize my position above: A 'violation of freedom' requires the use of force by an authority. A parent forcing a child to go somewhere in spite of their preferences is a 'violation of freedom'. A government forcing a citizen to go somewhere in spite of their preferences is a 'violation of freedom'. Neither the first case nor the second case are necessarily the same proportionality or equally 'heinous'. 'heino…

That people voluntarily gave facebook a temporary claim to certain inalienable rights is undeniable. What happened was that the userbase shifted and became larger, the power of the individual became weaker, and the rights and obligations vested in the company in the initial user agreement were eroded to the point of meaninglessness, without ongoing consent from the user. So at this point, your data is theirs. Moreove…

I don't think he was trolling, but simply gut-reacted to the negative sentiment surrounding FB. People that use, and are solidly invested in, the FB platform might perceive your commentary as a kind of personal attack.

I do not, and I really appreciate your thoughts here, as they echo my own (though I think you've articulated the issues better than I've ever seen). In my view, no centralized entity could ever occupy the role FB is attempting to claim; certainly not a commercial entity.

Post reply on HN