20 ms·

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

670 points by phantom_oracle 10y ago

lemiffe 10y ago
Great article, but the amount of HRs made me cringe a little bit.
manu-chroma 10y ago
Can any one point out when was this article written ? He has some really valid points in there.
- sotojuan 10y ago
  No idea when it was created (probably early in Facebook's existence), but Stallman has people constantly update and add new stuff.
  - bederoso 10y ago
    >but Stallman has people constantly update and add new stuff. As can be seen by the latest links on the page, one of them from early June [1], others from May and March 2016 But, indeed, it was first created circa 2011 [1] <p>Facebook's app has started <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160605165148/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/10/facebook_scans_camera_for_your_friends/">scanning https://web.archive.org/web/20160605165148/http://www.thereg... photos</a> people take with their phones.
- mathieuh 10y ago
  > Copyright 2011-2013 Richard Stallman released under Creative Commons Attribution Noderivs 3.0 unported 2011 I guess
- hgylfason 10y ago
  This gives a rough estimate. https://web.archive.org/web/20110915000000*/https://stallman.org/facebook.html https://web.archive.org/web/20110915000000*/https://stallman...
- hacker42 10y ago
  2011, but it has been constantly updated since: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://stallman.org/facebook.html https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://stallman.org/facebook....
- shazow 10y ago
  Looking at the links mentioned in the article, they span from 2011 to 2016 as is evident from the URLs. Seems it's being updated regularly.
  - lunula 10y ago
    I've seen it over the years and every time it seems to have grown twice as long.
- anc84 10y ago
  Looks like 2011 or earlier: http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://stallman.org/facebook.html http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://stallman.org/facebook.h...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vonklaus 10y ago
I turned off ublock so that I could load the stylesheet. Nope, stallman's site just looks like that. It's actually refreshing, just a radical departure from the status quo. Although, it is RMS so should've expected that...
- babuskov 10y ago
  If only the paragraph width was set to something reasonable (say, 33em) it would be great.
  - nikbackm 10y ago
    The browser's reader mode helps with that.
  - zouhair 10y ago
    Easy Reader https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/easyreader/boamfheepdiallipiieadpmnklbhadhc https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/easyreader/boamfhe...
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    At first, I thought "hmm, the site (or, actually, its visitors) would probably benefit from some piece of CSS that just does a bit of nicer-looking typography - to be easier for the readers' eyes." But then I had also thought "nope, I suspect I'm misdirecting my wishes - it's the browsers (and their users) that should benefit from a default stylesheet that looks better than the current not-so-nice defaults."
    - majewsky 10y ago
      > it's the browsers (and their users) that should benefit from a default stylesheet that looks better than the current not-so-nice defaults. I'm sure browser vendors agree, but it would break too many sites. It's the old backwards-compatibility game.
fwr 10y ago
I couldn't help but cringe every time the word "used" was used for "user" after the first occurence.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- vonklaus 10y ago
  He's not wrong. edit: Per emsy's suggestion: I mean that he is just articulating that if something is free, you are the product, except he(stallman) articulates it by changing the noun to reflect his viewpoint. also, I just deleted facebook.
  - emsy 10y ago
    Sad to see you downvoted, because he articulated a common sentiment (if something is free, you are the product) with a stylistic device. I guess your reply should've included that.
  - weinzierl 10y ago
    If you are referring to the Lebowsky quote: I used to believe that to be true about Stallman too. Now I believe he is just right, what makes him so obnoxious is just that his truths are so inconvenient.
    - vonklaus 10y ago
      negative, if I were to refer to the Big Lebowsky quote (and not care about HN guidelines) I would've posted something like: He's not wrong, but the parent commenter is an asshole. But that would of course not be in the spirit of HN and I am sure that they must realize whether they cringe or not RMS is still going to have a pretty consistent view of the matter. edit: It actually is annoying how correct he is. FB was pretty nice, but I deactivated my account because I disagree with FB and this reminded me to have the conviction to actually vote. I voted against LinkedIn, Bank of AMerica, Facebook, some google services and Instagram so far this year. I voted for Gitlabs, Digital Ocean, Simple Bank and the Apple ecosystem.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
koenigdavidmj 10y ago
If you use it to talk with 98% of the nontechnical world, and plan events, then there is nothing else. If you eat your toenails during panel discussions and refuse even to have a phone, then this is a reasonable position.
- treve 10y ago
  Instead of arguing against the merit of his points, you choose to insult the person.
  - Faaak 10y ago
    Actually they have a point. When you're "young" (ie in you twenties), then you miss quite some social events not using facebook. It's sad, but it's true. Nevertheless I don't use it, but sometimes I wish I did.
    - lunula 10y ago
      Even when you're not in your 20s anymore this problem continues. That said, I'm much happier to learn from someone directly about some event, or directly invite friends to do something. I want to spend time with people who are socially active and it seems like those who are using social media to drive their social life are significantly more passive. We should keep friends like we used to, by sharing with them directly. In even a moderately-sized community we are never more than a step or two from everyone else, so networks of friends talking is more than enough to tell everyone about a cool event or party. I'm afraid that people forget this and become so reliant on broadcast systems like Facebook that they forget to maintain the social fabric with direct communication.
throwaway_exer 10y ago
deleted comment: > extreme and uncompromising. There is no middle ground with freedom. Either you're free, or you're not.
gjdimitrov 10y ago
Uh, yet another lecture on how to live my life by his omniscience
- capote 10y ago
  Nobody's telling anyone how to live their life here, much less you specifically.
  - gjdimitrov 10y ago
    Although I agree with a lot of what he's saying, every time I listen to him I can't help but hear the judgemental note. He takes his inherently good ideas to the extreme and they become more off-putting than eye-opening
    - capote 10y ago
      You're right, of course, but my point stands.
      - gjdimitrov 10y ago
        May be it was a poor choice of words on my side, what I was trying to get across here is that when one reads (or listens to) what he has to say, it feels more like a rebuke than a well constructed and convincing argument (even if it's the absolute truth).
      - chronolitus 10y ago
        > "Nobody's telling anyone how to live their life here" -------- > "Don't do this to others — don't be used by Facebook yourself!" > "Don't be tracked — pay cash." > "It is very important for you personally to [refuse to use Facebook], especially if some of your friends do (or might), because that's how you influence them, for good or for ill." > "Unfriend Facebook now — you are its product, not its customer."
        capote 10y ago
gourou 10y ago
EU legislation will push them to stop doing some of this (privacy section). Hopefully, the US will follow. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/eu-privacy-rules-may-hit-internet-giants-hard.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/eu-privacy-rules-may-hit-inte...
dlnovell 10y ago
Recently my girlfriend discovered the depth of the program FB started to listen to the microphone, even if the app isn't on. She never installed the FB app on her new phone. Multiple times in the last month, some VERY specific topic of conversation IRL has shown up as an ad in her FB stream. Most recently, a coworker told her about a "Custom Martin" guitar he had just bought. Later that day there was an ad for a custom Martin guitar. She's never searched for that, liked anything related, there's absolutely no other reasonable explanation, and facebook has made it clear they were going to start listening. They were serious. We later discovered that new Samsung phones have FB installed as a "system app" that can't be uninstalled, and that app has permission to turn on the microphone whenever, without permission. Her phone listens to everything she says all day. Anyone with the FB app (whether they choose to install it or not in the case of Samsungs) is being listened to at all times. To me, this is worse than every single thing on RMS's list. It's kinda terrifying.
- dlnovell 10y ago
  Oh, and also - this morning FB suggested I may know the Lyft driver from last night. I wasn't even the one who ordered the Lyft, I just rode in it. I don't have the FB app installed on my phone. WTF?
  - sghi 10y ago
    For that, I was under the assumption that the 'People you may know' on facebook was also who had been looking at you on Facebook, so the driver might have been looking you up.
    - dlnovell 10y ago
      How would he look me up? He didn't know my name. Can lyft drivers see the full name of the people who they pick up, or just the first name? If they can see the full name, then MAYBE he looked up my friend, then looked at his friends list and found me. I find that extremely unlikely. I've also seen a lot of very, very strange "you may know" suggestions for people that I've only met in passing, and again without full names.
thex10 10y ago
One point from the article I found most interesting: > Pages that contain Facebook "like" buttons enable Facebook to track visitors to those pages. Facebook tracks Internet users that see "like" buttons, even users who never visited facebook.com and never click on those buttons. > The ACLU has a way of enabling users to click a Facebook "like" button, which avoids this problem. Its pages have a link called "like us on Facebook" that leads to a Facebook page where it is possible to push a "like" button for the ACLU. But if you don't follow that link, Facebook gets no information about your visit to the ACLU page. I'd love to learn more about these sorts of strategies for subverting the Facebook omniscience.
- nikcub 10y ago
  The term for them is two-click like buttons, or privacy friendly like buttons. There are a number of implementations[0][1][2] Note that Facebook doesn't like having the loading or function of their like button altered (they want the third-party page loads for targetting)[3] Note also that some of the share button widgets that aggregate the different social networks into one widget (like AddThis and ShareThis) pitch themselves are more privacy friendly but they are much worse - they will track and target you and sell your data to every network they can. They also use (or used) evercookie techniques such as canvas fingerprinting or cache-based fingerprinting for persistent and privacy-setting resistant tracking[4]. [0] https://github.com/JonathanMH/privacy-friendly-facebook https://github.com/JonathanMH/privacy-friendly-facebook [1] http://www.h-online.com/features/Two-clicks-for-more-privacy-1783256.html http://www.h-online.com/features/Two-clicks-for-more-privacy... [2] https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy [3] http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FFacebook-beschwert-sich-ueber-datenschutzfreundlichen-2-Klick-Button-1335658.html http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=... [4] https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/libraries-are-giving-away-user-privacy.html https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/libraries-are-...
mwfunk 10y ago
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" or "Dumbocrat" or "Dumbocrap". That does not make me think they are clever wordsmiths; rather, that makes me think that they think I'm an idiot and that they think they can actually manipulate me with such silliness. It also makes me think they arrived at their own philosophy not by trying to understand opposing views, but by inventing their own strawmen for whatever tribe they imagine they are opposed to. It makes me think they are driven by tribalism rather than ideas. Example 2: well, here, RMS' insistence on using the word "useds" rather than "users" when referring to people who are on Facebook. Yeah, I get it. Ha ha ha. It doesn't make me think you're clever, it makes me think you literally do not possess the capacity to reason about anything without invoking strawmen. It calls into question every single observation you are making. It makes it sound like you don't respect the people you are supposedly trying to convince, and are instead just enjoying preaching to your choir. It's not like an isolated incident, it is literally his primary rhetorical device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades. Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It's so frustrating because he does have some (some) very insightful and constructive ideas about a lot of things, and could be such a positive contributor to the world, but it's like he wants to alienate his non-choir audience right out of the gate. It's like he's terrified of actually engaging with people that are not already 100% (not 99.9%, he demands 100%) on his side. He is right about some (some) things, but so many, many people will never know it because he wants to shoot himself in the foot as soon as possible.
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  > mwfunk 2 minutes ago 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. Thanks for saying that - that's one reason why I struggle to take this article seriously.
- 10y ago
projektir 10y ago
One thing worth noting is that, unfortunately, lacking a Facebook account doesn't truly shield you from it... people can still mention you, tag you in pictures, etc.
- beagle3 10y ago
  They can and will, but that's the least of your worries about Facebook. Every page that has a "like us on facebook" or "share this on facebook" - estimates are 50% of the web pages - reports your web surfing habits to Facebook. Whether or not you have a facebook account. uBlock Origin, AdBlockPlus, Disconnect, Ghostery, etc. are your friends.
george_ciobanu 10y ago
Brexit for Facebook - really? Is that all we learned from this recent referendum? Yes, it is weird to have this much personal information about so many people in the world in the hands of a corporation. But Facebook serves a real need - to connect. And they do it well. The problem is real - we need to have a non-commercial entity run this. But if Facebook dies tomorrow another company will take its place. How do we solve the need while addressing these issues? Should the government take it over? Which one? Should it become a non-profit? How should it be run? The problem is real but the solution is not to shut it down, but to work together to find the best way to serve all users. So Facebook is now a political issue - an international one. For all the bad things that came out of Facebook, there is also a lot of good - some would argue more. Let's address it by working together instead of shutting off.
- daveguy 10y ago
  > How do we solve the need while addressing these issues? I always hoped that something like diaspora[0] would take off. With blockchain technologies and ipfs style distributed filesystems it might be possible without any central organization. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    There's also GNU social. It's a decentralized (a la email/XMPP) social network. Distributed technology is not there yet but decentralized gets us pretty far.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    The Indie Web camp[1] guys have ideas for how to implement pretty much all of the value of Facebook using HTTP and other stuff on top of it — no need for a blockchain, no need for IPFS, just web servers talking to one another. They have protocols for mentions, for notifications, for authorisation. It's pretty cool. If folks would implement it, then we could each have our own feed, like Facebook offers, and all we'd need is Apache or nginx and some server-side code. [1] https://indiewebcamp.com/ https://indiewebcamp.com/
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
GmeSalazar 10y ago
Not directly related, but Stallman should be supporting/using LetsEncrypt instead of COMODO...
- 0xCMP 10y ago
  Pretty sure that's over. COMODO is releasing the trademarks.
- GmeSalazar 10y ago
  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."
gjkood 10y ago
I wonder if even highly computer literate users can grasp the scale of overt and covert information leakage that takes place when we connect a machine to an always on internet connection. Now with the advent of IoT and other always listening voice activated services the scale of this leakage is only growing bigger. The typical computer or phone user is ready and willing to give up their privacy to get a small discount or save a few bucks here and there. I wonder how many of Comcast's customers are aware that Comcast is running public Wifi services through their cable modems in their homes. In the wake of Snowden's revelations, it makes sense that we pay heed to Stallman's seemingly paranoid utterings. Facebook is just one among many information gatherers that we are feeding daily either willingly or unwittingly. “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
- Sylos 10y ago
  > I wonder if even highly computer literate users can grasp the scale of overt and covert information leakage that takes place when we connect a machine to an always on internet connection. Nah, not a chance. I mean, maybe if you're running a lightweight Linux distro and don't ever open a browser, then you might be able to grasp it, but what your average consumer device and your average webpages send out, should be well beyond what can be understood by any single human. That is not least also caused by the fact that at this point, data does not have an expiration date. For all we know, someone might be able to get data about your sleeping schedule in 500 years, still, or I don't know, jail your great-grandson when Hitler then finally does make a return, because you once talked to a Jewish girl.
wckronholm 10y ago
Everything else aside, the first Guardian article linked to under "Miscellaneous" [1] suggests that it will take more than a well reasoned argument to get people to leave facebook. [1] (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/05/facebook-deliberately-breaking-android-apps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/05/facebook-...)
nikcub 10y ago
If you want to run Facebook but want to be privacy conscious (any more suggestions? - this is what I do): 1. Create a separate browser profile for accessing Facebook 2. Run uBlock Origin 3. Don't install the mobile apps - use the mobile web interface 4. Turn your Facebook privacy settings up to 11 (the new max privacy settings are actually good/reasonable) - you can set it up so that you can't be found in search[0], can't be tagged in unwanted posts[4][5] 5. The cookie used to track you via the like buttons is called datr and is set on *.facebook.com if you want to block it in privoxy / squid etc. 6. If you access Facebook using the onion website[1] over Tor[2] they won't know your location or network info 7. Don't like anything and fill in as little information as possible 8. Don't add people you don't know 9. Review apps that have permission to access your profile and info regularly[3] [0] https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=privacy&section=search&view https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=privacy&section=search... [1] https://facebookcorewwwi.onion https://facebookcorewwwi.onion [2] https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en [3] https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications [4] https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=expansion&view https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=expan... [5] https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=suggestions&view https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=sugge...
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Good writeup I think 5 is solved by 2 as it blocks the Like buttons everywhere, no?
  - nikcub 10y ago
    Ye it is - but in case you want to block them on a router for other network clients that don't have uBlock or equiv. available
- andrei_says_ 10y ago
  Don't add people you know In real life and don't let people you know friend you.
Sami_Lehtinen 10y ago
How about using GNU Social instead of Facebook. https://gnu.io/social/ https://gnu.io/social/
- Faaak 10y ago
  It's good, but actually nobody uses-it ?
- lockes5hadow 10y ago
  I'd love to, but after I click the link, I get another link to "try" it. Clicking this link still gives me no joy, as now I need to find a server or something? Ok, lets see if there is one for my country, USA. Nothing on the popular list. Guess I should try the complete list. Oh look, no way to search. No suggestions on what I should be doing. Whatever, I could spend my time and energy figuring the rest of it out, but there is no way I am going to convince my girlfriend this is a good idea.
  - vacri 10y ago
    This is why Slack is taking the world by storm - the chat window isn't all that good (in my opinion), but the onboarding process is buttery-smooth and completely frictionless.
raverbashing 10y ago
As much as I dislike Fb (though I am a user and their tracking is disabled through Ublock), Stallman articles are usually "Old man yells at cloud" thing) So yes, I do use Fb, I do use closed source software and I have better things than to care about my "alleged" freedom. I get more value from those than they get from me, I assure you.
- lunula 10y ago
  I think his point is that you may feel this way now, but in the long term it will become apparent that the balance is not in your favor. If it is in your favor, then all the closed source systems and social networks have miscalculated and are in fact operating at a consistent loss. I am sure you are a smart person, but it doesn't seem likely that everyone has made a mistake in doing business with you and your data. He is saying that it may seem like a good deal now, but it is likely to become apparent in the future that it hasn't been. It isn't like we need a platform like Facebook to communicate on the internet, and we could avoid all the problems that communicating through them by using existing peer to peer approaches for online communication. I've run into RMS's page on this several times and it seems to double in length each time. This is to say that maybe things aren't getting better and the future in which even you might accept that it isn't a good thing to give ourselves to these platforms is quickly approaching.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    You're right that, in general, their business model is providing them a return. > but in the long term it will become apparent that the balance is not in your favor. If it is in your favor It is in my favor because I limit what I put there, and block tracking and ads. Yes, it might change in the future, but I suppose traffic would have moved to other places as well (hopefully not owned by fb - but all companies make a mistake sooner or later)
superobserver 10y ago
So is there a reason these are online? [removed link to photos out of concern that it is unrelated to the OP]
- saynsedit 10y ago
  What is your point? Criticizing Facebook is not inconsistent with posting a curated list of photos online.
  - superobserver 10y ago
    What is your point? Pointing out a curated list of photos online does not point to any inconsistency with critizing Facebook. If it does, that is merely coincidental and does not speak to the intent behind my post.
    - saynsedit 10y ago
      Okay, what is the intent of your post?
      - superobserver 10y ago
        What is the intent of yours? Are you not able to understand a simple interrogatory sentence? That seems unbelievable, given that you clearly know how to write them.
        saynsedit 10y ago
        Okay... So you just want to know why RMS has posted pictures online? How is that relevant to original post at all?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- superobserver 10y ago
simbalion 10y ago
Stallman is my hero. All social media is terrible, and all of it is impossible to profit from, and I bet all of it will eventually fail. Facebook doesn't make any money from social media, they make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their social media platform. Anyone who is interested in social blogging should have their own website (wordpress.com is free) with RSS support so people who like what you write can follow your posts. RSS is not controlled by any corporation. That is the internet way of doing social media. this is slightly off-topic but I read Zuckerberg's accounts got hacked because he used 'dadada' as a password on multiple services. People have called him a genius, he does not appear to be that exactly.
- newscracker 10y ago
  > Anyone who is interested in social blogging should have their own website (wordpress.com is free) The free wordpress.com blogs may show ads to users (who're not logged in) so that Automattic can make money. It's very likely that there's profiling and tracking going on there too.
  - simbalion 10y ago
    Fair enough, but the wordpress software itself can be installed on a private server. Hosting solutions are cheap as heck these days.
- mark_l_watson 10y ago
  I agree with you. I am very careful to use a blank browser profile when I occasionally log onto FB to see what family and friends post, but I generally see it as low value. I may be old fashioned but I really prefer using email and use my own blog on my own domain. Also: if you haven't already tried it, give Gnu Social a try. It has some rough edges but I enjoy it, and it feels good paying my Gnu Social site operator little bits of bitcoin so he can afford to keep it running. Gnu Social is federated but it seems to take a while for shared posts to percolate around to other servers.
- morgante 10y ago
  > Facebook doesn't make any money from social media, they make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their social media platform. Newspapers never made money, they just made money from side businesses that were tacked onto their social media platform. TV shows don't make money, they just make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their shows. Just because you don't like a business model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Advertising has been a successful business model for literally centuries.
advertising 10y ago
Who here has frequently used facebook and then got off the platform? What's been the hardest part without it? Was it hard? Do you feel disconnected or has communication actually been affected with the people who matter to you?
- jogjayr 10y ago
  Facebook quitter here. 6 years since I got rid of my account. It wasn't hard at all. I keep in touch with the people that matter to me using email, phone calls, text, IM and Whatsapp (and then they went and got themselves acquired...) It's arguable my social life might have been even better had I never left (missed invitations, lacking fodder for small talk with mutual acquaintances etc) but I clawed time back in my day for other things. I also don't have to worry about things like FOMO, social media generated envy, pointless social oneupmanship and the like. YMMV
- Johnny_Brahms 10y ago
  I was a frequent user until it dawned on me I was a "used" somewhere around 2013. I won't say it was easy, but there are fewer things that steal my energy. The only social network I still use is HN. I am however missing out. You'd be surprised how many companies and such that jump at the opportunity to become locked in. Many simply stop entertaining other communication channels. since I am no longer easily invited to events, all but my close friends bothers inviting me to things.
codedokode 10y ago
Facebook is also a "legal" spammer and it spams a lot. Had once registered with a fake account just to test some application and since then every day or so facebook sends me messages like "You might know these people" with some random guys or "You have received a notification". I haven't visited facebook maybe for a year but is still sends me messages daily. Luckily I used a separate email account for registration so I just redirected all emails from facebook to a spam folder.
jmarinez 10y ago
In total agreement with RMS on this.
newscracker 10y ago
This is a great list of links that I can refer to whenever I need to tell someone how bad Facebook as a company really is and what it does. Every time I see an article like this, I feel highly disappointed that there is still no alternative platform to move people into (at least easily). > Facebook: the most congenitally dishonest company in America. I've always believed this to be the case for a long time, except that I had "world" in mind instead of a specific country. I don't like Google tracking users either (and avoid/reduce/change how I use it), but Facebook has been at an altogether diferent "super evil" level all along and continues to be so. The "authentic name" policy is one of the worst things about Facebook as a platform and as a company, and it limits speaking out freely for many people (although there are many others who don't care). I try to limit the damage I'm causing (since I cannot avoid using FB for a few different reasons) by not putting personal information on it (except unavoidable ones like events I create), not using the FB mobile app (and instead using a browser where I have more control), and having diferent user profiles for different purposes (though Facebook doesn't "like" this).
seattle_spring 10y ago
Wow, the only thing missing to complete Stallman's persona is a fedora and a Guy Fawkes mask.
chflags 10y ago
I'll bet Zuckerberg and countless Facebook employees have used software written by Stallman. At the risk of being wrong, I'd even go so far as to say they need this software. But does Stallman ever need to use software written by Zuckerberg or Facebook employees? Personalities and errors in judgment aside, give respect and credit where it is due. I have never needed Facebook's software. And I doubt I ever will. From a purely utilitarian viewpoint, my gratitude goes to Stallman and the people who brought us the internet. I'm not sure what I could thank Facebook for. If Zuckerberg had failed to be in the right place at the right time, there would always be a substitute. But if there was no Stallman back in the 70's and 80's, would we still have gcc, gdb and so much free, open source software?
- umanwizard 10y ago
  Nobody needs GNU software; they can use FreeBSD which is just as good. They can also use clang and lldb instead of gcc and gdb. You can debate about whether those would have existed in their present form without the leadership of the FSF, but then you'd be making a different argument. By the way, I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that Stallman brought us the Internet but I can't see how that could possibly be true.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - swiley 10y ago
    But the free (as in libre) software movement has done something socially that I don't think could have been accomplished with BSD.
  - webkike 10y ago
    Needed. LLVM hasn't been around as long as Facebook, and for a long time initially you couldn't (or wanted to) build the Linux kernel with it.
  - chflags 10y ago
    "...I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that Stallman brought us the Internet..." No. The opposite. I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that besides free open source software, improvements in the network allow companies like Facebook to grow as big as they are. Before clang, FreeBSD used gcc. I'm actually not a GNU/Linux user; I wish BSD did not have to use gcc, but for as long as I've been a user, release engineering has always used gcc. I would personally prefer to use something like pcc as opposed to clang. Today, lots of companies use GNU software, when they could just as easily use BSD. And many BSD users still need gcc to compile their OS. Not how I expected things to turn out but attacking Stallman makes little sense at this point. Instead, maybe we should be thanking him. Companies like Facebook offer very little while taking all our personal information for their commercial use, while open source projects like BSD and GNU continue to offer a great deal, without requiring so much as an account or password, much less tracking our every move.
kuharich 10y ago
Previous discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6816072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6816072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201644
bikamonki 10y ago
I was a used a few months ago until I just quit. I enjoy trail running and time-permitting I try to do 5-7 races per year. This year I totally missed 2 races b/c I was not in the loop anymore. Organizers don't even have a website or newsletter anymore, just a FB page. Then I realized this is happening to businesses as well. They seem to ignore the fact that they are giving FB full control over its brand/audience. Anyway, Stallman is right, again.
- dublinben 10y ago
  >Organizers don't even have a website or newsletter anymore, just a FB page This will only get worse, as long as we let it. If the members of a community refuse to participate in their Facebook "group" or "event" page, then they will have to publish that information somewhere else.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  What's the other options? Everyone goes out and make Squarespace pages?
force_reboot 10y ago
Every user's looking for something. Some of them want to use Facebook. Some of them want to be used by Facebook.
alkonaut 10y ago
I'd give anything to switch social network but I'm not keen on switching to one where my friends aren't. So no matter how much I despise Facebook, today I can't really be without it. I'd literally miss every single social event because it has come to the point where no one even imagines that someone wouldn't use FB. I wish someone would just set up a free/open network by just stealing users social graph from Facebook outright and having people "migrate" to the new one (and also presenting FB data in the new apps feed during a transition period). This is of course an attack on everything that Facebook is, so naturally this new social network would have to be decentralized and the creators would have to be pretty low key.
carapace 10y ago
Facebook is one of the single most creepy things here in the future. I think if you time-travelled back to, say, the '50's and tried to explain FB to people they would just not believe you. They would think that aliens had brain-washed people before they'd believe that millions of people just blithely hand their personal lives to a third-party.
smegel 10y ago
As someone who has never used Facebook, I often feel like I am talking to members of some sinister cult when I meet someone who asks me about Facebook and I say I don't use it. The surprise and weird eyes they give me really unnerves me, it's not just a website to some people, it has become a integral part of their life and has seeped into their mind. It has gotten to the point that I am deliberately rude about it, feigning complete ignorance and saying things like "what's that, one of those stupid social networks?" or "why would anyone want to use that?" -- in the hope I momentarily shock them out of their brainwashed state into a moment of clarity where they realize not everyone is a member of this virtual cult.
- askafriend 10y ago
  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? That's the same surprise people are giving you. That's their perspective and it's not unreasonable.
  - smegel 10y ago
    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 voyeuristic way (and broadcasting your own), and has this "club" or "cult" feeling about it. If someone told me they didn't have a cellphone, yes I would be surprised, but more like "how do you get by?" rather than "who is this suspicious outsider?".
    - baby 10y ago
      > 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.
oneplane 10y ago
There really is no point in using Facebook, other than get the stuff other people post on it because they are there. You don't use facebook because your friends aren't there and you don't use facebook because you 'like' it. It's the same with messaging systems, phones, civilization in general: you do it because enough people in your life are there and only there. If all the people I ever wanted to communicate with were outside the city on a farm or something like that, I'd move there. Or if they only use email and IRC, then I'd only need those. But the fact is that many groups are only adressable on one platform, some only on facebook, others only on whatsapp, and others only on IRC. Sure, there is overlap, but that doesn't mean dropping 30% of the people you know from digital communications, just because they use some evilCorp software doesn't work. Migrations do happen from time to time, for example, there used to be MySpace, and in The Netherlands, there was Hyves, and before those, there was MSN and email. All of them, except for email just slowly died, or the critical mass of people you want to communicate with are no longer there. For me, the 'critial mass' of people on Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat etc is never reached. So far, there are maybe 5 or 6 people that are on those systems that I might be remotely interested in, but it's not enough to actually act on. And just like Facebook, those are just 'as bad' (some are Facebook-owned of course). I've also had people move away from WhatsApp to Telegram, and from Telegram to some other messaging system. Still, it's no critical mass on Telegram for me to use it, just like Skype. Doesn't matter if they are 'good' or 'evil'. So while having an opinion or knowing some service or knowing some company is evil, isolating yourself from the rest of the world (or just the friends and their preferred communications) isn't going to work, at least not for me. Making sure you don't put information there that you don't want to be there is about as good as it gets.
bbcbasic 10y ago
Has anyone posted this link on Facebook yet? :-)
GGMethos 10y ago
To be honest, RMS's reasons, while valid, are just barely scratching the surface of why you should not use (be used by) Facebook. It is not enough to not use Facebook but make sure any domains owned by the company are blocked in your hosts file so you can't possibly load that crap in your web browser. Here are just a few: https://ghostbin.com/paste/9evbc https://ghostbin.com/paste/9evbc
rajanchandi 10y ago
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.
anta40 10y ago
So, what is the solution then? I imagine something like switching to 'libre/free' social media, the way people switch to Linux instead of Windows?
xupybd 10y ago
Can someone please supply Mr Stallman with a better template or some CSS. I know he'll only use FOSS and is stuck with some basic tools, but I'm sure that layout could be improved.
anta40 10y ago
So, what is the solution then? Switch to open social networking engine, like Elgg, the way people switch to Linux from Windows?
amaks 10y ago
Interesting how much outcry this RMS's page causes. It's his personal opinion, you're free to disagree with him but advocating to take down this link is anti-constitutional.
atgb 10y ago
OT, but is Richard Stallman completely sane? Honestly a genuine question. I'm not poking fun at his mental health, I'm just curious after reading some of his requirements to have him as a guest speaker. The questionable excerpts are here: http://gizmodo.com/5853729/please-do-not-buy-richard-stallman-a-parrot-and-other-rules http://gizmodo.com/5853729/please-do-not-buy-richard-stallma... Full post here: https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/forum/#!msg/mysociety-community/zkyZpOXjgoQ/_8xyXSxv9zYJ https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/forum/#!msg/mysoci... He goes into great detail about the strangest things. Pets, food, temperature, beverages, not "supervising" him when he crosses the road? Just odd things to go into detail about..
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
_yosefk 10y ago
"Putting the photo of someone on Facebook (or Instagram) contributes to surveillance of that person. Please don't post any photos there that include me, and I suggest you avoid posting photos of anyone else too." I wish Facebook (and G+ etc.) users cared, I really do. I also wish they didn't share their contacts with Facebook (and WhatsApp, LinkedIn, etc.) Of course nobody cares, so you can't really opt out of these social networks.
delroekid 10y ago
great content.. i quit facebook 4 years ago. same reasons rms has
Tharkun 10y ago
A lot of my friends use FB messages/chat instead of e-mail. If i want to stay in touch with them, FB is the only way. This used to be OKish, when FB did XMPP and i could use any client. That's since been shut down, and the mobile website no longer lets you read messages...
- provemewrong 10y ago
  I'm also in the same position. Currently using the Swipe application for Android, which is a wrapper around Facebook mobile with a hack to enable messaging. It works for now, but it's pretty much an uphill battle and I'm worried about the future.
saynsedit 10y ago
I don't agree with this post because its tone threatens my ego. There is hope for humanity.
dudusmaximus 10y ago
Facebook should create a "People Control 101" course for aspiring tyrannical Dictators/Regimes. Lectures include:- The Power of Defaults, Quagmire of Conflicting Settings, Constant rule-changes to befuddle the masses etc.
GarvielLoken 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_schizophrenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_schizophrenia
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't do this here.
stephenr 10y ago
As someone else has said, in theory I am in agreement with Stallman on this, but his obsession with using weird language and trying to coin alt-phrases in every fucking sentence makes me disagree with how he's trying to make his point. The same goes for terms like Copy protection, DRM, etc. Stallman is publishing his views with an obviously adult audience in mind, but the way he explains things is as if he were explaining it to children. If you're talking an adult audience, it's a reasonable expectation that they would understand (once told) the concept that the "rights" in DRM mean the rights of the creator/producer, rather than the rights of the listener/viewer, or that "copy protection" is a method to prevent the creation of copied works. This whole thing honestly sounds like his approach to software licenses as well. Stallman and his followers have claimed that when software is released under a less restrictive license, it's a terrible loss, because anyone else can then come along and use that software for whatever they want, including for-profit products that include their own improvements that are not released as open source. Having that view point is a personal choice, and I don't have any issue with you for it, but more often than not any discussed of a permissive vs copyleft licenses ends up in claims that choosing MIT/BSD/etc is "wrong". And suddenly the picture gets clearer: Stallman's ideas are not just his ideas, they're basically his religion, and if you don't join his religion (i.e. subscribe to his ideas, you're wrong, because you couldn't possibly be as smart as he is. We are but mindless children who cannot possibly have made an informed, educated decision about something, if our opinion on something differs from his.
FunctionalMan 10y ago
I didn't buy the 'psychological' arguments or the 'tax' argument at all.
gldev 10y ago
I don't know about what he says but i know that his heart is in the right place.
aklemm 10y ago
From a technical perspective, could a social network be built with acceptable privacy policies and still have all the features users want (assuming no ads and no profit motive necessary)?

670 points by phantom_oracle 10y ago

lemiffe 10y ago

Great article, but the amount of HRs made me cringe a little bit.

manu-chroma 10y ago

Can any one point out when was this article written ? He has some really valid points in there.

sotojuan 10y ago
No idea when it was created (probably early in Facebook's existence), but Stallman has people constantly update and add new stuff.
- bederoso 10y ago
  >but Stallman has people constantly update and add new stuff. As can be seen by the latest links on the page, one of them from early June [1], others from May and March 2016 But, indeed, it was first created circa 2011 [1] <p>Facebook's app has started <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160605165148/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/10/facebook_scans_camera_for_your_friends/">scanning https://web.archive.org/web/20160605165148/http://www.thereg... photos</a> people take with their phones.
mathieuh 10y ago
> Copyright 2011-2013 Richard Stallman released under Creative Commons Attribution Noderivs 3.0 unported 2011 I guess
hgylfason 10y ago
This gives a rough estimate. https://web.archive.org/web/20110915000000*/https://stallman.org/facebook.html https://web.archive.org/web/20110915000000*/https://stallman...
hacker42 10y ago
2011, but it has been constantly updated since: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://stallman.org/facebook.html https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://stallman.org/facebook....
shazow 10y ago
Looking at the links mentioned in the article, they span from 2011 to 2016 as is evident from the URLs. Seems it's being updated regularly.
- lunula 10y ago
  I've seen it over the years and every time it seems to have grown twice as long.
anc84 10y ago
Looks like 2011 or earlier: http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://stallman.org/facebook.html http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://stallman.org/facebook.h...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vonklaus 10y ago

I turned off ublock so that I could load the stylesheet. Nope, stallman's site just looks like that. It's actually refreshing, just a radical departure from the status quo. Although, it is RMS so should've expected that...

babuskov 10y ago
If only the paragraph width was set to something reasonable (say, 33em) it would be great.
- nikbackm 10y ago
  The browser's reader mode helps with that.
- zouhair 10y ago
  Easy Reader https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/easyreader/boamfheepdiallipiieadpmnklbhadhc https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/easyreader/boamfhe...
- drdaeman 10y ago
  At first, I thought "hmm, the site (or, actually, its visitors) would probably benefit from some piece of CSS that just does a bit of nicer-looking typography - to be easier for the readers' eyes." But then I had also thought "nope, I suspect I'm misdirecting my wishes - it's the browsers (and their users) that should benefit from a default stylesheet that looks better than the current not-so-nice defaults."
  - majewsky 10y ago
    > it's the browsers (and their users) that should benefit from a default stylesheet that looks better than the current not-so-nice defaults. I'm sure browser vendors agree, but it would break too many sites. It's the old backwards-compatibility game.

fwr 10y ago

I couldn't help but cringe every time the word "used" was used for "user" after the first occurence.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vonklaus 10y ago
He's not wrong. edit: Per emsy's suggestion: I mean that he is just articulating that if something is free, you are the product, except he(stallman) articulates it by changing the noun to reflect his viewpoint. also, I just deleted facebook.
- emsy 10y ago
  Sad to see you downvoted, because he articulated a common sentiment (if something is free, you are the product) with a stylistic device. I guess your reply should've included that.
- weinzierl 10y ago
  If you are referring to the Lebowsky quote: I used to believe that to be true about Stallman too. Now I believe he is just right, what makes him so obnoxious is just that his truths are so inconvenient.
  - vonklaus 10y ago
    negative, if I were to refer to the Big Lebowsky quote (and not care about HN guidelines) I would've posted something like: He's not wrong, but the parent commenter is an asshole. But that would of course not be in the spirit of HN and I am sure that they must realize whether they cringe or not RMS is still going to have a pretty consistent view of the matter. edit: It actually is annoying how correct he is. FB was pretty nice, but I deactivated my account because I disagree with FB and this reminded me to have the conviction to actually vote. I voted against LinkedIn, Bank of AMerica, Facebook, some google services and Instagram so far this year. I voted for Gitlabs, Digital Ocean, Simple Bank and the Apple ecosystem.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

koenigdavidmj 10y ago

If you use it to talk with 98% of the nontechnical world, and plan events, then there is nothing else. If you eat your toenails during panel discussions and refuse even to have a phone, then this is a reasonable position.

treve 10y ago
Instead of arguing against the merit of his points, you choose to insult the person.
- Faaak 10y ago
  Actually they have a point. When you're "young" (ie in you twenties), then you miss quite some social events not using facebook. It's sad, but it's true. Nevertheless I don't use it, but sometimes I wish I did.
  - lunula 10y ago
    Even when you're not in your 20s anymore this problem continues. That said, I'm much happier to learn from someone directly about some event, or directly invite friends to do something. I want to spend time with people who are socially active and it seems like those who are using social media to drive their social life are significantly more passive. We should keep friends like we used to, by sharing with them directly. In even a moderately-sized community we are never more than a step or two from everyone else, so networks of friends talking is more than enough to tell everyone about a cool event or party. I'm afraid that people forget this and become so reliant on broadcast systems like Facebook that they forget to maintain the social fabric with direct communication.

throwaway_exer 10y ago

deleted comment: > extreme and uncompromising. There is no middle ground with freedom. Either you're free, or you're not.

gjdimitrov 10y ago

Uh, yet another lecture on how to live my life by his omniscience

capote 10y ago
Nobody's telling anyone how to live their life here, much less you specifically.
- gjdimitrov 10y ago
  Although I agree with a lot of what he's saying, every time I listen to him I can't help but hear the judgemental note. He takes his inherently good ideas to the extreme and they become more off-putting than eye-opening
  - capote 10y ago
    You're right, of course, but my point stands.
    - gjdimitrov 10y ago
      May be it was a poor choice of words on my side, what I was trying to get across here is that when one reads (or listens to) what he has to say, it feels more like a rebuke than a well constructed and convincing argument (even if it's the absolute truth).
    - chronolitus 10y ago
      > "Nobody's telling anyone how to live their life here" -------- > "Don't do this to others — don't be used by Facebook yourself!" > "Don't be tracked — pay cash." > "It is very important for you personally to [refuse to use Facebook], especially if some of your friends do (or might), because that's how you influence them, for good or for ill." > "Unfriend Facebook now — you are its product, not its customer."
      - capote 10y ago

gourou 10y ago

EU legislation will push them to stop doing some of this (privacy section). Hopefully, the US will follow. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/eu-privacy-rules-may-hit-internet-giants-hard.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/eu-privacy-rules-may-hit-inte...

dlnovell 10y ago

Recently my girlfriend discovered the depth of the program FB started to listen to the microphone, even if the app isn't on. She never installed the FB app on her new phone. Multiple times in the last month, some VERY specific topic of conversation IRL has shown up as an ad in her FB stream. Most recently, a coworker told her about a "Custom Martin" guitar he had just bought. Later that day there was an ad for a custom Martin guitar. She's never searched for that, liked anything related, there's absolutely no other reasonable explanation, and facebook has made it clear they were going to start listening. They were serious. We later discovered that new Samsung phones have FB installed as a "system app" that can't be uninstalled, and that app has permission to turn on the microphone whenever, without permission. Her phone listens to everything she says all day. Anyone with the FB app (whether they choose to install it or not in the case of Samsungs) is being listened to at all times. To me, this is worse than every single thing on RMS's list. It's kinda terrifying.

dlnovell 10y ago
Oh, and also - this morning FB suggested I may know the Lyft driver from last night. I wasn't even the one who ordered the Lyft, I just rode in it. I don't have the FB app installed on my phone. WTF?
- sghi 10y ago
  For that, I was under the assumption that the 'People you may know' on facebook was also who had been looking at you on Facebook, so the driver might have been looking you up.
  - dlnovell 10y ago
    How would he look me up? He didn't know my name. Can lyft drivers see the full name of the people who they pick up, or just the first name? If they can see the full name, then MAYBE he looked up my friend, then looked at his friends list and found me. I find that extremely unlikely. I've also seen a lot of very, very strange "you may know" suggestions for people that I've only met in passing, and again without full names.

thex10 10y ago

One point from the article I found most interesting: > Pages that contain Facebook "like" buttons enable Facebook to track visitors to those pages. Facebook tracks Internet users that see "like" buttons, even users who never visited facebook.com and never click on those buttons. > The ACLU has a way of enabling users to click a Facebook "like" button, which avoids this problem. Its pages have a link called "like us on Facebook" that leads to a Facebook page where it is possible to push a "like" button for the ACLU. But if you don't follow that link, Facebook gets no information about your visit to the ACLU page. I'd love to learn more about these sorts of strategies for subverting the Facebook omniscience.

nikcub 10y ago
The term for them is two-click like buttons, or privacy friendly like buttons. There are a number of implementations[0][1][2] Note that Facebook doesn't like having the loading or function of their like button altered (they want the third-party page loads for targetting)[3] Note also that some of the share button widgets that aggregate the different social networks into one widget (like AddThis and ShareThis) pitch themselves are more privacy friendly but they are much worse - they will track and target you and sell your data to every network they can. They also use (or used) evercookie techniques such as canvas fingerprinting or cache-based fingerprinting for persistent and privacy-setting resistant tracking[4]. [0] https://github.com/JonathanMH/privacy-friendly-facebook https://github.com/JonathanMH/privacy-friendly-facebook [1] http://www.h-online.com/features/Two-clicks-for-more-privacy-1783256.html http://www.h-online.com/features/Two-clicks-for-more-privacy... [2] https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy [3] http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FFacebook-beschwert-sich-ueber-datenschutzfreundlichen-2-Klick-Button-1335658.html http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=... [4] https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/libraries-are-giving-away-user-privacy.html https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/libraries-are-...

mwfunk 10y ago

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" or "Dumbocrat" or "Dumbocrap". That does not make me think they are clever wordsmiths; rather, that makes me think that they think I'm an idiot and that they think they can actually manipulate me with such silliness. It also makes me think they arrived at their own philosophy not by trying to understand opposing views, but by inventing their own strawmen for whatever tribe they imagine they are opposed to. It makes me think they are driven by tribalism rather than ideas. Example 2: well, here, RMS' insistence on using the word "useds" rather than "users" when referring to people who are on Facebook. Yeah, I get it. Ha ha ha. It doesn't make me think you're clever, it makes me think you literally do not possess the capacity to reason about anything without invoking strawmen. It calls into question every single observation you are making. It makes it sound like you don't respect the people you are supposedly trying to convince, and are instead just enjoying preaching to your choir. It's not like an isolated incident, it is literally his primary rhetorical device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades. Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It's so frustrating because he does have some (some) very insightful and constructive ideas about a lot of things, and could be such a positive contributor to the world, but it's like he wants to alienate his non-choir audience right out of the gate. It's like he's terrified of actually engaging with people that are not already 100% (not 99.9%, he demands 100%) on his side. He is right about some (some) things, but so many, many people will never know it because he wants to shoot himself in the foot as soon as possible.

thomasfoster96 10y ago
> mwfunk 2 minutes ago 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. Thanks for saying that - that's one reason why I struggle to take this article seriously.
10y ago

projektir 10y ago

One thing worth noting is that, unfortunately, lacking a Facebook account doesn't truly shield you from it... people can still mention you, tag you in pictures, etc.

beagle3 10y ago
They can and will, but that's the least of your worries about Facebook. Every page that has a "like us on facebook" or "share this on facebook" - estimates are 50% of the web pages - reports your web surfing habits to Facebook. Whether or not you have a facebook account. uBlock Origin, AdBlockPlus, Disconnect, Ghostery, etc. are your friends.

george_ciobanu 10y ago

Brexit for Facebook - really? Is that all we learned from this recent referendum? Yes, it is weird to have this much personal information about so many people in the world in the hands of a corporation. But Facebook serves a real need - to connect. And they do it well. The problem is real - we need to have a non-commercial entity run this. But if Facebook dies tomorrow another company will take its place. How do we solve the need while addressing these issues? Should the government take it over? Which one? Should it become a non-profit? How should it be run? The problem is real but the solution is not to shut it down, but to work together to find the best way to serve all users. So Facebook is now a political issue - an international one. For all the bad things that came out of Facebook, there is also a lot of good - some would argue more. Let's address it by working together instead of shutting off.

daveguy 10y ago
> How do we solve the need while addressing these issues? I always hoped that something like diaspora[0] would take off. With blockchain technologies and ipfs style distributed filesystems it might be possible without any central organization. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)
- saynsedit 10y ago
  There's also GNU social. It's a decentralized (a la email/XMPP) social network. Distributed technology is not there yet but decentralized gets us pretty far.
- wtbob 10y ago
  The Indie Web camp[1] guys have ideas for how to implement pretty much all of the value of Facebook using HTTP and other stuff on top of it — no need for a blockchain, no need for IPFS, just web servers talking to one another. They have protocols for mentions, for notifications, for authorisation. It's pretty cool. If folks would implement it, then we could each have our own feed, like Facebook offers, and all we'd need is Apache or nginx and some server-side code. [1] https://indiewebcamp.com/ https://indiewebcamp.com/

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

GmeSalazar 10y ago

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

0xCMP 10y ago
Pretty sure that's over. COMODO is releasing the trademarks.
GmeSalazar 10y ago
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."

gjkood 10y ago

I wonder if even highly computer literate users can grasp the scale of overt and covert information leakage that takes place when we connect a machine to an always on internet connection. Now with the advent of IoT and other always listening voice activated services the scale of this leakage is only growing bigger. The typical computer or phone user is ready and willing to give up their privacy to get a small discount or save a few bucks here and there. I wonder how many of Comcast's customers are aware that Comcast is running public Wifi services through their cable modems in their homes. In the wake of Snowden's revelations, it makes sense that we pay heed to Stallman's seemingly paranoid utterings. Facebook is just one among many information gatherers that we are feeding daily either willingly or unwittingly. “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Sylos 10y ago
> I wonder if even highly computer literate users can grasp the scale of overt and covert information leakage that takes place when we connect a machine to an always on internet connection. Nah, not a chance. I mean, maybe if you're running a lightweight Linux distro and don't ever open a browser, then you might be able to grasp it, but what your average consumer device and your average webpages send out, should be well beyond what can be understood by any single human. That is not least also caused by the fact that at this point, data does not have an expiration date. For all we know, someone might be able to get data about your sleeping schedule in 500 years, still, or I don't know, jail your great-grandson when Hitler then finally does make a return, because you once talked to a Jewish girl.

wckronholm 10y ago

Everything else aside, the first Guardian article linked to under "Miscellaneous" [1] suggests that it will take more than a well reasoned argument to get people to leave facebook. [1] (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/05/facebook-deliberately-breaking-android-apps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/05/facebook-...)

nikcub 10y ago

If you want to run Facebook but want to be privacy conscious (any more suggestions? - this is what I do): 1. Create a separate browser profile for accessing Facebook 2. Run uBlock Origin 3. Don't install the mobile apps - use the mobile web interface 4. Turn your Facebook privacy settings up to 11 (the new max privacy settings are actually good/reasonable) - you can set it up so that you can't be found in search[0], can't be tagged in unwanted posts[4][5] 5. The cookie used to track you via the like buttons is called datr and is set on *.facebook.com if you want to block it in privoxy / squid etc. 6. If you access Facebook using the onion website[1] over Tor[2] they won't know your location or network info 7. Don't like anything and fill in as little information as possible 8. Don't add people you don't know 9. Review apps that have permission to access your profile and info regularly[3] [0] https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=privacy&section=search&view https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=privacy&section=search... [1] https://facebookcorewwwi.onion https://facebookcorewwwi.onion [2] https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en [3] https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications [4] https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=expansion&view https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=expan... [5] https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=suggestions&view https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=sugge...

raverbashing 10y ago
Good writeup I think 5 is solved by 2 as it blocks the Like buttons everywhere, no?
- nikcub 10y ago
  Ye it is - but in case you want to block them on a router for other network clients that don't have uBlock or equiv. available
andrei_says_ 10y ago
Don't add people you know In real life and don't let people you know friend you.

Sami_Lehtinen 10y ago

How about using GNU Social instead of Facebook. https://gnu.io/social/ https://gnu.io/social/

Faaak 10y ago
It's good, but actually nobody uses-it ?
lockes5hadow 10y ago
I'd love to, but after I click the link, I get another link to "try" it. Clicking this link still gives me no joy, as now I need to find a server or something? Ok, lets see if there is one for my country, USA. Nothing on the popular list. Guess I should try the complete list. Oh look, no way to search. No suggestions on what I should be doing. Whatever, I could spend my time and energy figuring the rest of it out, but there is no way I am going to convince my girlfriend this is a good idea.
- vacri 10y ago
  This is why Slack is taking the world by storm - the chat window isn't all that good (in my opinion), but the onboarding process is buttery-smooth and completely frictionless.

raverbashing 10y ago

As much as I dislike Fb (though I am a user and their tracking is disabled through Ublock), Stallman articles are usually "Old man yells at cloud" thing) So yes, I do use Fb, I do use closed source software and I have better things than to care about my "alleged" freedom. I get more value from those than they get from me, I assure you.

lunula 10y ago
I think his point is that you may feel this way now, but in the long term it will become apparent that the balance is not in your favor. If it is in your favor, then all the closed source systems and social networks have miscalculated and are in fact operating at a consistent loss. I am sure you are a smart person, but it doesn't seem likely that everyone has made a mistake in doing business with you and your data. He is saying that it may seem like a good deal now, but it is likely to become apparent in the future that it hasn't been. It isn't like we need a platform like Facebook to communicate on the internet, and we could avoid all the problems that communicating through them by using existing peer to peer approaches for online communication. I've run into RMS's page on this several times and it seems to double in length each time. This is to say that maybe things aren't getting better and the future in which even you might accept that it isn't a good thing to give ourselves to these platforms is quickly approaching.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  You're right that, in general, their business model is providing them a return. > but in the long term it will become apparent that the balance is not in your favor. If it is in your favor It is in my favor because I limit what I put there, and block tracking and ads. Yes, it might change in the future, but I suppose traffic would have moved to other places as well (hopefully not owned by fb - but all companies make a mistake sooner or later)

superobserver 10y ago

So is there a reason these are online? [removed link to photos out of concern that it is unrelated to the OP]

saynsedit 10y ago
What is your point? Criticizing Facebook is not inconsistent with posting a curated list of photos online.
- superobserver 10y ago
  What is your point? Pointing out a curated list of photos online does not point to any inconsistency with critizing Facebook. If it does, that is merely coincidental and does not speak to the intent behind my post.
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    Okay, what is the intent of your post?
    - superobserver 10y ago
      What is the intent of yours? Are you not able to understand a simple interrogatory sentence? That seems unbelievable, given that you clearly know how to write them.
      - saynsedit 10y ago
        Okay... So you just want to know why RMS has posted pictures online? How is that relevant to original post at all?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
superobserver 10y ago

simbalion 10y ago

Stallman is my hero. All social media is terrible, and all of it is impossible to profit from, and I bet all of it will eventually fail. Facebook doesn't make any money from social media, they make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their social media platform. Anyone who is interested in social blogging should have their own website (wordpress.com is free) with RSS support so people who like what you write can follow your posts. RSS is not controlled by any corporation. That is the internet way of doing social media. this is slightly off-topic but I read Zuckerberg's accounts got hacked because he used 'dadada' as a password on multiple services. People have called him a genius, he does not appear to be that exactly.

newscracker 10y ago
> Anyone who is interested in social blogging should have their own website (wordpress.com is free) The free wordpress.com blogs may show ads to users (who're not logged in) so that Automattic can make money. It's very likely that there's profiling and tracking going on there too.
- simbalion 10y ago
  Fair enough, but the wordpress software itself can be installed on a private server. Hosting solutions are cheap as heck these days.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
I agree with you. I am very careful to use a blank browser profile when I occasionally log onto FB to see what family and friends post, but I generally see it as low value. I may be old fashioned but I really prefer using email and use my own blog on my own domain. Also: if you haven't already tried it, give Gnu Social a try. It has some rough edges but I enjoy it, and it feels good paying my Gnu Social site operator little bits of bitcoin so he can afford to keep it running. Gnu Social is federated but it seems to take a while for shared posts to percolate around to other servers.
morgante 10y ago
> Facebook doesn't make any money from social media, they make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their social media platform. Newspapers never made money, they just made money from side businesses that were tacked onto their social media platform. TV shows don't make money, they just make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their shows. Just because you don't like a business model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Advertising has been a successful business model for literally centuries.

advertising 10y ago

Who here has frequently used facebook and then got off the platform? What's been the hardest part without it? Was it hard? Do you feel disconnected or has communication actually been affected with the people who matter to you?

jogjayr 10y ago
Facebook quitter here. 6 years since I got rid of my account. It wasn't hard at all. I keep in touch with the people that matter to me using email, phone calls, text, IM and Whatsapp (and then they went and got themselves acquired...) It's arguable my social life might have been even better had I never left (missed invitations, lacking fodder for small talk with mutual acquaintances etc) but I clawed time back in my day for other things. I also don't have to worry about things like FOMO, social media generated envy, pointless social oneupmanship and the like. YMMV
Johnny_Brahms 10y ago
I was a frequent user until it dawned on me I was a "used" somewhere around 2013. I won't say it was easy, but there are fewer things that steal my energy. The only social network I still use is HN. I am however missing out. You'd be surprised how many companies and such that jump at the opportunity to become locked in. Many simply stop entertaining other communication channels. since I am no longer easily invited to events, all but my close friends bothers inviting me to things.

codedokode 10y ago

Facebook is also a "legal" spammer and it spams a lot. Had once registered with a fake account just to test some application and since then every day or so facebook sends me messages like "You might know these people" with some random guys or "You have received a notification". I haven't visited facebook maybe for a year but is still sends me messages daily. Luckily I used a separate email account for registration so I just redirected all emails from facebook to a spam folder.

jmarinez 10y ago

In total agreement with RMS on this.

newscracker 10y ago

This is a great list of links that I can refer to whenever I need to tell someone how bad Facebook as a company really is and what it does. Every time I see an article like this, I feel highly disappointed that there is still no alternative platform to move people into (at least easily). > Facebook: the most congenitally dishonest company in America. I've always believed this to be the case for a long time, except that I had "world" in mind instead of a specific country. I don't like Google tracking users either (and avoid/reduce/change how I use it), but Facebook has been at an altogether diferent "super evil" level all along and continues to be so. The "authentic name" policy is one of the worst things about Facebook as a platform and as a company, and it limits speaking out freely for many people (although there are many others who don't care). I try to limit the damage I'm causing (since I cannot avoid using FB for a few different reasons) by not putting personal information on it (except unavoidable ones like events I create), not using the FB mobile app (and instead using a browser where I have more control), and having diferent user profiles for different purposes (though Facebook doesn't "like" this).

seattle_spring 10y ago

Wow, the only thing missing to complete Stallman's persona is a fedora and a Guy Fawkes mask.

chflags 10y ago

I'll bet Zuckerberg and countless Facebook employees have used software written by Stallman. At the risk of being wrong, I'd even go so far as to say they need this software. But does Stallman ever need to use software written by Zuckerberg or Facebook employees? Personalities and errors in judgment aside, give respect and credit where it is due. I have never needed Facebook's software. And I doubt I ever will. From a purely utilitarian viewpoint, my gratitude goes to Stallman and the people who brought us the internet. I'm not sure what I could thank Facebook for. If Zuckerberg had failed to be in the right place at the right time, there would always be a substitute. But if there was no Stallman back in the 70's and 80's, would we still have gcc, gdb and so much free, open source software?

umanwizard 10y ago
Nobody needs GNU software; they can use FreeBSD which is just as good. They can also use clang and lldb instead of gcc and gdb. You can debate about whether those would have existed in their present form without the leadership of the FSF, but then you'd be making a different argument. By the way, I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that Stallman brought us the Internet but I can't see how that could possibly be true.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- swiley 10y ago
  But the free (as in libre) software movement has done something socially that I don't think could have been accomplished with BSD.
- webkike 10y ago
  Needed. LLVM hasn't been around as long as Facebook, and for a long time initially you couldn't (or wanted to) build the Linux kernel with it.
- chflags 10y ago
  "...I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that Stallman brought us the Internet..." No. The opposite. I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that besides free open source software, improvements in the network allow companies like Facebook to grow as big as they are. Before clang, FreeBSD used gcc. I'm actually not a GNU/Linux user; I wish BSD did not have to use gcc, but for as long as I've been a user, release engineering has always used gcc. I would personally prefer to use something like pcc as opposed to clang. Today, lots of companies use GNU software, when they could just as easily use BSD. And many BSD users still need gcc to compile their OS. Not how I expected things to turn out but attacking Stallman makes little sense at this point. Instead, maybe we should be thanking him. Companies like Facebook offer very little while taking all our personal information for their commercial use, while open source projects like BSD and GNU continue to offer a great deal, without requiring so much as an account or password, much less tracking our every move.

kuharich 10y ago

Previous discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6816072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6816072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201644

bikamonki 10y ago

I was a used a few months ago until I just quit. I enjoy trail running and time-permitting I try to do 5-7 races per year. This year I totally missed 2 races b/c I was not in the loop anymore. Organizers don't even have a website or newsletter anymore, just a FB page. Then I realized this is happening to businesses as well. They seem to ignore the fact that they are giving FB full control over its brand/audience. Anyway, Stallman is right, again.

dublinben 10y ago
>Organizers don't even have a website or newsletter anymore, just a FB page This will only get worse, as long as we let it. If the members of a community refuse to participate in their Facebook "group" or "event" page, then they will have to publish that information somewhere else.
madeofpalk 10y ago
What's the other options? Everyone goes out and make Squarespace pages?

force_reboot 10y ago

Every user's looking for something. Some of them want to use Facebook. Some of them want to be used by Facebook.

alkonaut 10y ago

I'd give anything to switch social network but I'm not keen on switching to one where my friends aren't. So no matter how much I despise Facebook, today I can't really be without it. I'd literally miss every single social event because it has come to the point where no one even imagines that someone wouldn't use FB. I wish someone would just set up a free/open network by just stealing users social graph from Facebook outright and having people "migrate" to the new one (and also presenting FB data in the new apps feed during a transition period). This is of course an attack on everything that Facebook is, so naturally this new social network would have to be decentralized and the creators would have to be pretty low key.

carapace 10y ago

Facebook is one of the single most creepy things here in the future. I think if you time-travelled back to, say, the '50's and tried to explain FB to people they would just not believe you. They would think that aliens had brain-washed people before they'd believe that millions of people just blithely hand their personal lives to a third-party.

smegel 10y ago

As someone who has never used Facebook, I often feel like I am talking to members of some sinister cult when I meet someone who asks me about Facebook and I say I don't use it. The surprise and weird eyes they give me really unnerves me, it's not just a website to some people, it has become a integral part of their life and has seeped into their mind. It has gotten to the point that I am deliberately rude about it, feigning complete ignorance and saying things like "what's that, one of those stupid social networks?" or "why would anyone want to use that?" -- in the hope I momentarily shock them out of their brainwashed state into a moment of clarity where they realize not everyone is a member of this virtual cult.

askafriend 10y ago
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? That's the same surprise people are giving you. That's their perspective and it's not unreasonable.
- smegel 10y ago
  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 voyeuristic way (and broadcasting your own), and has this "club" or "cult" feeling about it. If someone told me they didn't have a cellphone, yes I would be surprised, but more like "how do you get by?" rather than "who is this suspicious outsider?".
  - baby 10y ago
    > 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.

oneplane 10y ago

There really is no point in using Facebook, other than get the stuff other people post on it because they are there. You don't use facebook because your friends aren't there and you don't use facebook because you 'like' it. It's the same with messaging systems, phones, civilization in general: you do it because enough people in your life are there and only there. If all the people I ever wanted to communicate with were outside the city on a farm or something like that, I'd move there. Or if they only use email and IRC, then I'd only need those. But the fact is that many groups are only adressable on one platform, some only on facebook, others only on whatsapp, and others only on IRC. Sure, there is overlap, but that doesn't mean dropping 30% of the people you know from digital communications, just because they use some evilCorp software doesn't work. Migrations do happen from time to time, for example, there used to be MySpace, and in The Netherlands, there was Hyves, and before those, there was MSN and email. All of them, except for email just slowly died, or the critical mass of people you want to communicate with are no longer there. For me, the 'critial mass' of people on Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat etc is never reached. So far, there are maybe 5 or 6 people that are on those systems that I might be remotely interested in, but it's not enough to actually act on. And just like Facebook, those are just 'as bad' (some are Facebook-owned of course). I've also had people move away from WhatsApp to Telegram, and from Telegram to some other messaging system. Still, it's no critical mass on Telegram for me to use it, just like Skype. Doesn't matter if they are 'good' or 'evil'. So while having an opinion or knowing some service or knowing some company is evil, isolating yourself from the rest of the world (or just the friends and their preferred communications) isn't going to work, at least not for me. Making sure you don't put information there that you don't want to be there is about as good as it gets.

bbcbasic 10y ago

Has anyone posted this link on Facebook yet? :-)

GGMethos 10y ago

To be honest, RMS's reasons, while valid, are just barely scratching the surface of why you should not use (be used by) Facebook. It is not enough to not use Facebook but make sure any domains owned by the company are blocked in your hosts file so you can't possibly load that crap in your web browser. Here are just a few: https://ghostbin.com/paste/9evbc https://ghostbin.com/paste/9evbc

rajanchandi 10y ago

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.

anta40 10y ago

So, what is the solution then? I imagine something like switching to 'libre/free' social media, the way people switch to Linux instead of Windows?

xupybd 10y ago

Can someone please supply Mr Stallman with a better template or some CSS. I know he'll only use FOSS and is stuck with some basic tools, but I'm sure that layout could be improved.

anta40 10y ago

So, what is the solution then? Switch to open social networking engine, like Elgg, the way people switch to Linux from Windows?

amaks 10y ago

Interesting how much outcry this RMS's page causes. It's his personal opinion, you're free to disagree with him but advocating to take down this link is anti-constitutional.

atgb 10y ago

OT, but is Richard Stallman completely sane? Honestly a genuine question. I'm not poking fun at his mental health, I'm just curious after reading some of his requirements to have him as a guest speaker. The questionable excerpts are here: http://gizmodo.com/5853729/please-do-not-buy-richard-stallman-a-parrot-and-other-rules http://gizmodo.com/5853729/please-do-not-buy-richard-stallma... Full post here: https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/forum/#!msg/mysociety-community/zkyZpOXjgoQ/_8xyXSxv9zYJ https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/forum/#!msg/mysoci... He goes into great detail about the strangest things. Pets, food, temperature, beverages, not "supervising" him when he crosses the road? Just odd things to go into detail about..

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

_yosefk 10y ago

"Putting the photo of someone on Facebook (or Instagram) contributes to surveillance of that person. Please don't post any photos there that include me, and I suggest you avoid posting photos of anyone else too." I wish Facebook (and G+ etc.) users cared, I really do. I also wish they didn't share their contacts with Facebook (and WhatsApp, LinkedIn, etc.) Of course nobody cares, so you can't really opt out of these social networks.

delroekid 10y ago

great content.. i quit facebook 4 years ago. same reasons rms has

Tharkun 10y ago

A lot of my friends use FB messages/chat instead of e-mail. If i want to stay in touch with them, FB is the only way. This used to be OKish, when FB did XMPP and i could use any client. That's since been shut down, and the mobile website no longer lets you read messages...

provemewrong 10y ago
I'm also in the same position. Currently using the Swipe application for Android, which is a wrapper around Facebook mobile with a hack to enable messaging. It works for now, but it's pretty much an uphill battle and I'm worried about the future.

saynsedit 10y ago

I don't agree with this post because its tone threatens my ego. There is hope for humanity.

dudusmaximus 10y ago

Facebook should create a "People Control 101" course for aspiring tyrannical Dictators/Regimes. Lectures include:- The Power of Defaults, Quagmire of Conflicting Settings, Constant rule-changes to befuddle the masses etc.

GarvielLoken 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_schizophrenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_schizophrenia

dang 10y ago
Please don't do this here.

stephenr 10y ago

As someone else has said, in theory I am in agreement with Stallman on this, but his obsession with using weird language and trying to coin alt-phrases in every fucking sentence makes me disagree with how he's trying to make his point. The same goes for terms like Copy protection, DRM, etc. Stallman is publishing his views with an obviously adult audience in mind, but the way he explains things is as if he were explaining it to children. If you're talking an adult audience, it's a reasonable expectation that they would understand (once told) the concept that the "rights" in DRM mean the rights of the creator/producer, rather than the rights of the listener/viewer, or that "copy protection" is a method to prevent the creation of copied works. This whole thing honestly sounds like his approach to software licenses as well. Stallman and his followers have claimed that when software is released under a less restrictive license, it's a terrible loss, because anyone else can then come along and use that software for whatever they want, including for-profit products that include their own improvements that are not released as open source. Having that view point is a personal choice, and I don't have any issue with you for it, but more often than not any discussed of a permissive vs copyleft licenses ends up in claims that choosing MIT/BSD/etc is "wrong". And suddenly the picture gets clearer: Stallman's ideas are not just his ideas, they're basically his religion, and if you don't join his religion (i.e. subscribe to his ideas, you're wrong, because you couldn't possibly be as smart as he is. We are but mindless children who cannot possibly have made an informed, educated decision about something, if our opinion on something differs from his.

FunctionalMan 10y ago

I didn't buy the 'psychological' arguments or the 'tax' argument at all.

gldev 10y ago

I don't know about what he says but i know that his heart is in the right place.

aklemm 10y ago

From a technical perspective, could a social network be built with acceptable privacy policies and still have all the features users want (assuming no ads and no profit motive necessary)?