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

In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

betabeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

#31

Post by skore »

corin_ wrote: post #23

Isn't this a little bit like saying "You can't claim to be against governments spying on their own citizens if you ever go outside. By going outside they can trace where you are, and who you visit." I don't want to live in a world where I have to not do things to avoid privacy invasion, I want to live in one which doesn't allow privacy invasion. Obviously it's not a simple issue, you can't just sign up to twitter and…

No. Going outside is an act that happens on common grounds. Using facebook happens on commercial grounds. You can choose not to use facebook and eliminate the problem right there. You cannot choose not to use roads.

You are right to say that we need better rules to regulate the second, or to go with Moglen - the people should know better than to even ask for such rules instead of staying away from the problem. But that doesn't mean that the same logic must suddenly apply to civil society, no matter how paranoid (and, at times, rightfully paranoid) you may be about the tracking that happens there.

Re: In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

#32

Post by jwallaceparker »

>> Me: I think that’s totally relevant and will definitely put it in. (N.B.: In the end, I did not put this in the story for several reasons, not the least of it was the fact that it was late and over word limit.)

So what ARE the reasons?!?!

I'd like to hear why Adrianne Jeffries didn't include any of Moglen's points in the final article.

Does Adrianne Jeffries really think Moglen's ideas are "totally relevant"? The tone of her article suggests otherwise. She introduces him as a "militant" professor, and the title of her post appears to mock the entire situation.

The telephone exchange is certainly entertaining, but Moglen's points are relevant and I'm disappointed the author didn't include her reasons for omitting them from her article.

Re: In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

#33

Post by nl »

skore wrote: post #30
nl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My response is far from a strawman. Moglen pointed out all the problems with Facebook (and Twitter) without showing the benefits.

So you say it's not a straw man. Maybe you have some more words left to explain yourself on that point? He was asked for the problems. It's not his job to advertise social networking services. One of the big figures of Software Freedom is asked about the drawbacks of social networking services and you start your argument with saying that he doesn't talk about the benefits. And then you compare the drawbacks to the ec…

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I don't think I misrepresented Moglen's position in anyway. He only spoke about the negative aspects of social networking, but nothing about the conveniences. Argument by analogy isn't a strawman.

I agree that recent advances in washing machines have improved them, and that the environmental impact of them is far outweighed by the convenience.

Indeed, that is my point.

For me - and many others - the convenience and advantages of social networking outweighs the costs. I make that decision in full knowledge of those costs, and I think it is fair to point out that there are advantages as well as costs.

Re: In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

#34

Post by etfb »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #7
vetler wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I can see how he's right about users tempting banks, but why would reporters who write about this need to close their Facebook accounts?

Because it would be like an American who complains for the violence of Mexico but buys illegal marijuana and cocaine. He is the cause; but all he does is hoping that others will stop the violence some other way rather than he quitting drugs.

That metaphor is wrong in an intriguing and illustrative way. The problem with drugs is that they're illegal, so criminals have a monopoly. If they were legal, that part of the problem would largely disappear. Granted, it would be replaced with other problems, and there are those who believe (I'm not one of them) that the resulting problems would be worse... but the fact remains.

How would I recast your metaphor to be more like what Moglen is saying? No idea, since I think he's a crackpot and he's quite wrong, but it was fun thinking about it.

Re: In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

#35

Post by skore »

nl wrote: post #33
skore wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you say it's not a straw man. Maybe you have some more words left to explain yourself on that point? He was asked for the problems. It's not his job to advertise social networking services. One of the big figures of Software Freedom is asked about the drawbacks of social networking services and you start your argument with saying that he doesn't talk about the benefits. And then you compare the drawbacks to the ec…

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. I don't think I misrepresented Moglen's po…

Mr. Moglen is well known to speak against and was asked to comment on the drawbacks of social networks. You are attacking a straw man if you complain that he isn't talking about the benefits.

    Person A: Sunny days are good.
    Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.
    Problem: B has misrepresented A's claim by falsely suggesting that A claimed that only sunny days are good, and then B refuted the misrepresented version of the claim, rather than refuting A's original assertion.
You are picking a discussion that Mr. Moglen was not having.

The benefits of social networks are self evident - they enable communication in an unprecedented way. His argument is that the drawbacks he is talking about are unnecessary and dangerous and that some of the technology may seem useful, but is actually just thinly disguised non-social behavior ("keeping up" with somebody may border on "stalking"). You have not addressed any of his arguments while complaining that he didn't address points that nobody was discussing to begin with.

So yes, one more, final, time - your argument is a straw man.

Re: In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

#36

Post by nl »

skore wrote: post #35
nl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. I don't think I misrepresented Moglen's po…

Mr. Moglen is well known to speak against and was asked to comment on the drawbacks of social networks. You are attacking a straw man if you complain that he isn't talking about the benefits. Person A: Sunny days are good. Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong. Problem: B has misrepresented A's claim by falsely suggesting that A…

Wait - so I'm not allowed to attack omissions in his arguments?

That's like saying when Rick Santorum points out what he sees as problems with gay marriage no one can point out the benefits because it is a strawman.

That's ridiculous!

Re: In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

#37

Post by jwallaceparker »

nkoren wrote: post #27

Moglen is of course correct about the problems of privacy and corporate ownership of social networks -- but then goes on to take an absolutist position which is both strategically indefensible and ethically bankrupt. First, a key concept: there is no such thing as absolute freedom. Freedom can exist at many different levels, some of which are mutually exclusive; sometimes abrogations of lower-order freedoms are requi…

>> Ethics aside, it's also bad strategy, and just won't work. If you're obligated to give up your car before writing about global warming, or obligated to become a vegan before writing about animal cruelty, or obligated to take monastic vows before writing about conflict in domestic relationships -- then you'll probably never write about any of these issues. And that won't help anybody, will it?

I find Moglen's absolutist point of view on this issue refreshing.

You're not obligated to give up your car or go vegan to write about certain issues, but you're a hypocrite if you don't acknowledge your own contribution to a problem.

Two examples:

Al Gore did a great job spreading the word about global warming, but he still has a larger carbon footprint than most Americans (it's well-documented).

Jonathan Safran Foer became vegan when he researched and wrote his book "Eating Animals" about animal cruelty.

We need more people like Foer, do we not?

Re: In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

#38

Post by kelnos »

skore wrote: post #35
nl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. I don't think I misrepresented Moglen's po…

Mr. Moglen is well known to speak against and was asked to comment on the drawbacks of social networks. You are attacking a straw man if you complain that he isn't talking about the benefits. Person A: Sunny days are good. Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong. Problem: B has misrepresented A's claim by falsely suggesting that A…

Except that Moglen is effectively saying that it would be good if every day was a sunny day. He's taking the absolutist position that social networks are always bad and anyone who uses them is a part of the problem.

Re: In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

#39

Post by andrewcooke »

etfb wrote: post #34
jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it would be like an American who complains for the violence of Mexico but buys illegal marijuana and cocaine. He is the cause; but all he does is hoping that others will stop the violence some other way rather than he quitting drugs.

That metaphor is wrong in an intriguing and illustrative way. The problem with drugs is that they're illegal, so criminals have a monopoly. If they were legal, that part of the problem would largely disappear. Granted, it would be replaced with other problems, and there are those who believe (I'm not one of them) that the resulting problems would be worse... but the fact remains. How would I recast your metaphor to b…

i can't see the logic in your reasoning here.

just because legalisation would improve the situation doesn't mean that people who continue to buy drugs illegaly are not also responsible for the problems in mexico.

a problem can have multiple causes, and multiple solutions. but that does not mean that you can choose one solution as the "correct" one and discard all the others.

the typical american who buys drugs cannot change the law, but they can stop buying drugs and that would reduce the problems. so if they choose not to do so then they have some moral responsibility for the violence in mexico. that is not removed because there are other possible solutions.

Re: In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook

#40

Post by skore »

nl wrote: post #36
skore wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mr. Moglen is well known to speak against and was asked to comment on the drawbacks of social networks. You are attacking a straw man if you complain that he isn't talking about the benefits. Person A: Sunny days are good. Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong. Problem: B has misrepresented A's claim by falsely suggesting that A…

Wait - so I'm not allowed to attack omissions in his arguments? That's like saying when Rick Santorum points out what he sees as problems with gay marriage no one can point out the benefits because it is a strawman. That's ridiculous!

Alright, this is moving quickly into troll territory. One final reply:

The premise of the article we are discussing was this:

"My editor wanted a quote from a privacy advocate, so I immediately thought of Eben “Spying for Free” Moglen, a militant digital privacy advocate, founder of the uber-secure personal server FreedomBox, and the inspiration for the decentralized social network Diaspora."

Eben Moglen was asked for his statement as a privacy advocate. There is nothing to be said about facebook in terms of being a privacy advocate. Except for maybe "sure wish they'd try some!". And that's the end of your argument right there.

Eben Moglen argues that facebook is bad because of the gross privacy violations it institutionalized. His argument is perfectly sound and coherent and doesn't need any forced "balancing" to be valid. He is not omitting any facts to make his argument.

You are welcome to argue against it, but you have instead chosen to act as though his argument is moot because he didn't make yours. That's not how arguments work.

Your 'Rick Santorum' point boggles the mind. Rick Santorum is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs. You could now attack a point completely unrelated or only superficially related to his rants about gay marriage and that would be a straw man. You could also, however, argue for or against his points with your own argument.

Post reply on HN