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

61–70 of 109 posts

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

#61

Post by spacemanaki »

bravura wrote: post #42

Dr. Moglen: Well you called me, you know what the problem is. People lost their homes. People lose their money. People lose their freedom. (??? -ed.) Could someone elaborate upon these? I am not aware of these incidents. (In particular, the first two.)

"People lost their homes." makes me think he's talking about he housing market collapse, which was partly caused by unscrupulous banks lending to people they shouldn't have. The topic was banks digging up info on Facebook about borrowers... it's not a parallel but it certainly could be discussed in the same breath.

I agree it's a bit obtuse.

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

#62

Post by rdssassin »

When privacy advocates are as honest as Moglen, they recognize that the biggest problem facing them is not governments or Facebook but those damn, stupid people who keep letting their privacy be invaded. Sure, people will say they want privacy, when you ask them using that loaded word, but time and again when faced with the choice between revealing information and getting some small thing of value, they reveal the information. But underneath the Moglen viewpoint is a huge disconnect: If privacy is about individuals exercising power over one's own information, and the vast majority of people consistently decline to exercise that power, then what the hell are privacy advocates advocating for?

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

#63

Post by pessimizer »

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…

Her reasons, I think, are as Moglen suggests. She has a false concern for social networking privacy issues that only exists to the extent to which she will not be inconvenienced in any way. She's not willing to indict herself in an article, because her chosen journalistic posture is to present real debates as interesting abstractions rather than as actual moral questions that should have implications on your daily behavior.

You really couldn't be both against apartheid and play Sun City, no matter how much you said you sympathized.

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

#64

Post by Sorpigal »

knowtheory wrote: post #48
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. :)

This is actually entirely untrue given the way that Facebook is set up. The most insidious thing that Facebook has done, is litter the web with their "Like" buttons. Oh sure, they're not the ones who have put up "Like" buttons around the web, all they've done is insist that websites who do want a "Like" button have to use file assets & scripts from their webserver. Well, by tracking where the "Like" button gets loade…

This is why it is essential for people who are concerned about privacy to use run Firefox and install the RequestPolicy extension. I simply don't whitelist facebook's domains and thus couldn't be tracked even if I had a Facebook account.

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

#66

Post by joezydeco »

bravura wrote: post #42

Dr. Moglen: Well you called me, you know what the problem is. People lost their homes. People lose their money. People lose their freedom. (??? -ed.) Could someone elaborate upon these? I am not aware of these incidents. (In particular, the first two.)

There have to be hundreds of social media-related incidents that came up in the middle east during the Arab Spring uprisings. This one came up first on a search:

"Man gets three years in prison for insulting Islam on Facebook"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/arab-spring-in-egypt-man-g...

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

#67

Post by pingswept »

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…

> Maybe you have some more words left to explain yourself on that point?

You could make the same point more civilly.

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

#68

Post by MrScruff »

andrewcooke wrote: post #39
etfb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't buy that line of argument at all. You're claiming that if you can establish some line of cause and effect then anyone in that chain must take moral responsibility for the outcome.

That's like saying an author who writes something that offends Islamists is responsible for any violence perpetrated on them, since they had the choice of not publishing.

The moral responsibility for acts of violence lies with those that commit them, or incite others to do so.

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

#69

Post by cookiecaper »

knowtheory wrote: post #48
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. :)

This is actually entirely untrue given the way that Facebook is set up. The most insidious thing that Facebook has done, is litter the web with their "Like" buttons. Oh sure, they're not the ones who have put up "Like" buttons around the web, all they've done is insist that websites who do want a "Like" button have to use file assets & scripts from their webserver. Well, by tracking where the "Like" button gets loade…

There are a variety of extensions that cut out "Like" buttons. This is part of "using Facebook" in a way that doesn't impede personal privacy.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

MrScruff wrote: post #68
andrewcooke wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't buy that line of argument at all. You're claiming that if you can establish some line of cause and effect then anyone in that chain must take moral responsibility for the outcome. That's like saying an author who writes something that offends Islamists is responsible for any violence perpetrated on them, since they had the choice of not publishing. The moral responsibility for acts of violence lies with those…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN