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

51–60 of 109 posts

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

#51

Post by Tichy »

I have to side with Moglen here. First the journalist decides to call somebody he describes as "a militant privacy advocate" (emphasis mine). Then he says things like "It just doesn’t seem like the consequences are that bad."

What did he ever expect? I think Moglen is right in his expectations that any article resulting from that will be bullshit. And really: "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". Really, the word limit is his excuse? Sorry, but I think the journalist is the jerk here.

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

#52

Post by icebraining »

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.

But he's not complaining, just reporting. If I'm fat, is it immoral for me to say that obesity is a problem?

Frankly, I find his position ridiculous. He's essentially saying journalists have to be these beacons of virtue above everyone else if they want to report on bad things that are happening.

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

#53

Post by chernevik »

napoleoncomplex wrote: post #8
cookiecaper wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use Facebook in a way that doesn't endanger your personal privacy, it can be primarily a consumption platform for the endangered privacy of all of your associates. :)

The article author attempted to weasel himself out with that defence as well, but the nonsense of that argument was one of Moglen's main points. It's not just about you, it's about everyone in your network. To quote it exactly: "You injure other people today also using social media. You’ve informed on them. You’ve created more records about them. You’ve added to the problems not of yourself but of other people. If it…

As a point of view, fine.

As a qualification for reporting / thinking / writing on the issue -- no.

Moglen is saying that before Betabeat can report, they must agree with him. Which ignores the possibility, remote as it may be, that Eben Moglen could be wrong about something. And, the implications of the example he sets for others.

Respect for freedom of speech is more than insistence on a constitutional norm. It is an attitude of respect for the possibility that you might be wrong even in your strongest beliefs. Such respect is our surest protection against absolutism.

Moblen may think his intransigence adds urgency to his message, and it has gotten him a forum this time. But even so he's deteriorating the culture of free speech and thought, and free-riding on the maintenance of that culture by the maturity of others.

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

#55

Post by icebraining »

jwallaceparker wrote: post #37
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 absol…

So what if he is an hypocrite? Since when do we expect journalists to be virtuous? They're simply reporting the facts. Their life is completely irrelevant.

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?

Sure, people doing what they preach is great, if you choose a value we agree with. But I'm sure you'd prefer if Breivik had been an hypocrite and not done what he believed to be right.

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

#56

Post by yobfountain »

jwallaceparker wrote: post #32

>> 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…

The author is referring to another article in her N.B. It's linked in the first paragraph: http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/13/as-banks-start-nosing-aro...

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

#57

Post by spacemanaki »

16s wrote: post #54

How comparable are sites like HN to FaceBook and Twitter? I'm genuinely curious what others, here, think about that. I don't use the mainstream social sites, but I do use and like HN. Would professor Moglen think HN users were part of the problem too?

Well there are no ads being served on HN, so while it's possible that pg and YC are collecting tons of interesting data on people from analyzing their comments and votes, I think it's easier to imagine that they are not, since there's no clear motive.

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

#58

Post by loup-vaillant »

EGreg wrote: post #28
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.

So someone needs to become a vegan in order to write about animal cruelty? Sometimes it's not so clear that things are so black and white. Just because I write about an issue doesn't mean I will first have to get on one side of it.

However, if you do say that you take sides, take sides.

You don't need to be a vegan to write about animal cruelty, but you'd better be one to complain about it. (Assuming for the sake of the argument that eating meat causes animal cruelty.)

So, while you don't have to quit Facebook to write about its effects on privacy, you'd better quit if you want to complain about those effects.

(EDIT: I retract: other comments point out that acknowledging you contribute to a problem you complain about is sufficient for not being a hypocrite. While it would be better to just stop contributing to that problem, unilaterally deciding that often exposes you to the No Network Effect. So, you can't really be expected to stop first. That first-mover disadvantage is sometimes a deal-breaker. We need some coordination to avoid it. But it is important to acknowledge you're part of the problem. For if you don't, there is no hope.)

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

#59

Post by [deleted] »

mfringel wrote: post #50
jwallaceparker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 absol…

I find that point to be orthogonal. That's like saying that everyone at Occupy Wall Street had forswear all material goods in order to be considered "valid" protesters. Discarding someone's argument due to a lack of complete purity is just plain facile.

[deleted]

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

#60

Post by pessimizer »

nl wrote: post #45
skore wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Rick Santorum is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs. Moglen 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. This is true. Add…

Probably under an article talking about some specific benefit of social networking. Hopefully no one will be enraged by your only analyzing the truth of that benefit there, rather than recounting everything terrible about social networking that went unmentioned.

When you respond to a Santorum argument about the terrible things about gay marriage with a list of good things about gay marriage, you have accepted his arguments as true, and started a new discussion.

Post reply on HN