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

231–240 of 376 posts

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

#231

Post by ppopoff »

kstrauser wrote: post #222
jordigh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty. He did not "appropriate" the term free. FreeBSD and OpenBSD call what they do "free software" and they also call the gcc "free" and the phrase "free software" predates the Free Software Foundation. He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he…

> He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he says "free". Unlike what most of his opponents seem to believe, he does not mean "copyleft only" when he says "free". He means the exact same thing as "open source", just like "global warming" means the same thing as "climate change". Same thing, different political slant. That's not remotely true. When RMS says "free", he means "copyleft".…

I would even agree that RMS appropriated the term free, but what your statement that RMS says free == copyleft is not remotely true and contradicted by your "source." His definition of "free" is aligned with the OSI definition of "open source" (the term he dislikes). RMS is a waterbearer for copyleft because he doesn't respect proprietary uses, but he includes BSD/MIT licenses under his definition of "free." He doesn't include software that has public source but restricts free commercial use, modification etc.

This notion of free though certainly isn't what most nonhackers/software people would generally associate with the term. It's his formulation.

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

#232

Post by ppopoff »

ComodoHacker wrote: post #152
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"…

>that makes me think that they think I'm an idiot and that they think they can actually manipulate me with such silliness. So "Brexit" was made up just to manipulate British people? That's how language evolves, isn't it? New words get coined, some of them stick and stay, some go away. "Dumbocrat" won't stay for long because it carries nothing but insult.

Brexit is not a pejorative corruption of a pre-existing name or term. Incidentally, it's a basically neutral coinage used by both Leave and Remain camps.

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

#233

Post by rajanchandi »

I recently quit Facebook and felt like I'm free(with my time). It is interesting to note that after you order "deletion" your account will remain for 14 days and you could come back. It is like 2 weeks notice period (before quitting the job) which is a standard in united states. I'd still keep using WhatsApp as long as it stays utilitarian and lets me communicate with my people.

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

#234

Post by baby »

smegel wrote: post #218
askafriend wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Cell phones didn't introduce a whole new human activity. At the end of the day, you were still just having a phone conversation with someone - it was just easier and more convenient way to do something people were already doing. 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 voyeur…

> Cell phones didn't introduce a whole new human activity.

Wherever you are, if you are not at home, look around you and tell me that cellphones didn't introduce a whole new human activity.

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

#235

Post by baby »

beagle3 wrote: post #71
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"…

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…

> You are, indeed, used by facebook when you interact with it

But we're using it too. So maybe, "exchange" would be a better word? Although, with most of nowadays' apps (youtube, google, gmail, facebook, whatsapp, ...), the way they use "us" is really limited compared to the practicality they provide.

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

#236

Post by cortesoft »

superobserver wrote: post #153
cortesoft wrote: post #149

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.

I was not using the term 'hate' in the emotional sense. Perhaps a better choice of words would be to say that I find the argument disingenuous; almost everyone these days knows what Facebook does for a living, so to act like Facebook users are somehow being tricked is simply untrue.

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

#237

Post by suprgeek »

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"…

He is not "wrapping" the very language. He is trying to correct the semantic imbalance that is tilted towards the $100 Billion corporation. The thing you need to grok about RMS is that he is a purist.

This fact strikes many people as stubborn, too idealistic, impractical etc - except that from RMS perspective it is the least he could do to stay true to himself.

Also consider this - the world of software has been infinitely enriched by RMS (and the like) so he has the absolute right to put forth arguments with the expectation that software developers pay attention.

Facebook on the other hand has not done so - to put it mildly.

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

#238

Post by ppopoff »

drdaeman wrote: post #64
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"…

You have a point, but I believe warping the language from the norms can be different. I can't know what Stallman meant exactly and what are his intentions, but from reading the text I believe what he tries to do is to either create a neologism (cf. "enforce a meme"), or avoid a word misuse that may lead to some invalid connotations or suggestions (cf. calling a photocopier "xerox"). Probably both, but the latter case…

Except that Stallman uses what you identify as name-calling all the time (cf. Amazon Swindle).

Also, the oft-repeated notion that "piracy" is a contemporary slur invented to associate copyright infringers with violence on the high seas is simply wrong. It's documented since 1603 (The Wonderfull yeare, T. Dekker), and is the term used by the 1883 Berne Convention. That's covers most of the history of the word in English usage.

Fine if you want to change the dialogue on IP, especially based on changing technology, but that doesn't justify rewriting history.

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

#239

Post by GmeSalazar »

GmeSalazar wrote: post #54

Not directly related, but Stallman should be supporting/using LetsEncrypt instead of COMODO...

By the way, I inquired him on this a few months back and the answer was: "I don't know enough certificates to think about the question. I leave that issue to others." and then, after I tried to explain a bit about it and the licenses in use, "I don't know enough about certificates to take any position about them."

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

#240

Post by endgame »

beagle3 wrote: post #71
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"…

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…

As much as I agree with rms' philosophy, the word substitutions often feel like playground insults rather than useful rhetorical devices.

Digital Restrictions Management is about the only one that's really stuck: it's not contrived, it's more accurate and it fits the initialism.

Post reply on HN