5 ms·

But that's what Facebook users are - useds. They're targets for Facebook's platform, namely, delivering ads. You've actually made a strawman of RMS' argument by

But that's what Facebook users are - useds. They're targets for Facebook's platform, namely, delivering ads. You've actually made a strawman of RMS' argument by attempting to draw the false parallel between ex1 and ex2. The appropriate understanding of RMS' use of language is similar to how any philosopher might use language with idiosyncratic coinages thrown in. In other words, it is simply a manifestation of a particular philosophical outlook. Edit: it would appear quite a few other responders to your post are making this point as well. I think you should seriously reconsider how you're attempting to characterise RMS' way of making a point.

Udik 10y ago
They're also users. Or, you could use the same inversion for about everything: we're not buying cars for getting around, it's the automotive industries that lure us into giving them money with stuff that can be used for travelling. We're not consumers of potatoes, it's the potatoes that use us to reproduce themselves. Facebook is, apparently, satisfying some needs. Users pay for it by giving a share of their attention to ads, but they wouldn't watch the ads if there wasn't a value in Facebook itself. Seems to be a win-win relationship.
- superobserver 10y ago
  You're only emphasising the legitimate use of "useds" by RMS. The notion, in any case, is that being a used of Facebook undermine's one's claim to privacy. Potatoes and cars don't apparently do the same thing, so they qualify as red herrings at best - having no relationship or bearing on the larger claims RMS puts forward. C'mon. It's no secret that Facebook doesn't give much concern to users/useds privacy. Any claim to the contrary is highly suspect. This is only to reiterate that the target market of Facebook does not include those who wish to maintain a greater level of privacy by not using it.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  I think you are validating RMS' approach without realizing it. Take the perspective that potatoes use us to reproduces themselves: Viewing things from that perspective is actually a useful device for explaining and understanding biological evolution. Just because it's an unusual perspective, does not mean that it's therefore invalid or useless or even just a bad idea. Also, to take the analogy further, bacteria and viruses do the same in some way. Now, and interesting question to ask is: Is facebook a potato or a virus?
  - Udik 10y ago
    I'm not saying that "used" is invalid per se, but rather that it is a perspective that is not justified simply by the fact that Facebook has an advantage from the user. I think your last question further clarifies the problem. Human beings are clearly used by viruses. Unless they use a virus to drive a gene into an organism. But sometimes things are harder to discern: are human beings users or useds of tobacco? Or of cats (* )? In the end probably it all depends on a value judgement: who gets by far the most value out of the transaction? But then Stallman should just say plain and loud what he means: that Facebook is useless to the people that spend their time on it. --- (*) as cats are clearly parasites hijacking the human nervous system.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      > I'm not saying that "used" is invalid per se, but rather that it is a perspective that is not justified simply by the fact that Facebook has an advantage from the user. But are you saying that "user" is a perspective that is justified simply by the fact that the used has an advantage from Facebook? > In the end probably it all depends on a value judgement: Of course it does. Everything does. Even whether killing people is bad is ultimately a value judgement. > But then Stallman should just say plain and loud what he means: that Facebook is useless to the people that spend their time on it. Why should he? And doesn't he? Did you not understand him that you think he should express himself clearer?
      - Udik 10y ago
- pdonis 10y ago
  > Seems to be a win-win relationship. In the short term, it may be. But RMS is looking at the long term. In the long term, he believes people will be worse off if they use Facebook than if they don't. I agree with him on that.
cortesoft 10y ago
I really hate this argument. Sure, everyone knows that Facebook makes money by selling advertisers access to targeted users. However, it isn't like users aren't getting something in return for this. Users of facebook aren't 'useds', they are participants in a transaction. They are given a service they enjoy, and in return they grant their eyeballs for ads, and their data for targeting those ads. Now, we can argue whether users are aware of what they are trading, or if the trade is fair, but I think most people have a pretty good idea of how Facebook is making money.
- superobserver 10y ago
  You can hate the argument all you like; although such an emotionally charged term being levelled against the argument itself is curious but probably not particularly informative. It also doesn't change the way Facebook violates norms of privacy in a number of ways that should give people pause for thought, at any rate. RMS has put forward excellent reasons that detract from the use of the platform.
  - superobserver 10y ago
    Cf. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_iram http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_iram
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    I was not using the term 'hate' in the emotional sense. Perhaps a better choice of words would be to say that I find the argument disingenuous; almost everyone these days knows what Facebook does for a living, so to act like Facebook users are somehow being tricked is simply untrue.
- pdonis 10y ago
  > I think most people have a pretty good idea of how Facebook is making money. I don't. I think most people don't even think about how Facebook is making money. They just see that it doesn't cost them any money, and they think "oh, great, I can connect with people for free!" and use it without considering the costs or the bigger picture. This certainly describes practically everyone I know personally who uses Facebook.

Udik 10y ago

They're also users. Or, you could use the same inversion for about everything: we're not buying cars for getting around, it's the automotive industries that lure us into giving them money with stuff that can be used for travelling. We're not consumers of potatoes, it's the potatoes that use us to reproduce themselves. Facebook is, apparently, satisfying some needs. Users pay for it by giving a share of their attention to ads, but they wouldn't watch the ads if there wasn't a value in Facebook itself. Seems to be a win-win relationship.

superobserver 10y ago
You're only emphasising the legitimate use of "useds" by RMS. The notion, in any case, is that being a used of Facebook undermine's one's claim to privacy. Potatoes and cars don't apparently do the same thing, so they qualify as red herrings at best - having no relationship or bearing on the larger claims RMS puts forward. C'mon. It's no secret that Facebook doesn't give much concern to users/useds privacy. Any claim to the contrary is highly suspect. This is only to reiterate that the target market of Facebook does not include those who wish to maintain a greater level of privacy by not using it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
I think you are validating RMS' approach without realizing it. Take the perspective that potatoes use us to reproduces themselves: Viewing things from that perspective is actually a useful device for explaining and understanding biological evolution. Just because it's an unusual perspective, does not mean that it's therefore invalid or useless or even just a bad idea. Also, to take the analogy further, bacteria and viruses do the same in some way. Now, and interesting question to ask is: Is facebook a potato or a virus?
- Udik 10y ago
  I'm not saying that "used" is invalid per se, but rather that it is a perspective that is not justified simply by the fact that Facebook has an advantage from the user. I think your last question further clarifies the problem. Human beings are clearly used by viruses. Unless they use a virus to drive a gene into an organism. But sometimes things are harder to discern: are human beings users or useds of tobacco? Or of cats (* )? In the end probably it all depends on a value judgement: who gets by far the most value out of the transaction? But then Stallman should just say plain and loud what he means: that Facebook is useless to the people that spend their time on it. --- (*) as cats are clearly parasites hijacking the human nervous system.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    > I'm not saying that "used" is invalid per se, but rather that it is a perspective that is not justified simply by the fact that Facebook has an advantage from the user. But are you saying that "user" is a perspective that is justified simply by the fact that the used has an advantage from Facebook? > In the end probably it all depends on a value judgement: Of course it does. Everything does. Even whether killing people is bad is ultimately a value judgement. > But then Stallman should just say plain and loud what he means: that Facebook is useless to the people that spend their time on it. Why should he? And doesn't he? Did you not understand him that you think he should express himself clearer?
    - Udik 10y ago
pdonis 10y ago
> Seems to be a win-win relationship. In the short term, it may be. But RMS is looking at the long term. In the long term, he believes people will be worse off if they use Facebook than if they don't. I agree with him on that.

cortesoft 10y ago

I really hate this argument. Sure, everyone knows that Facebook makes money by selling advertisers access to targeted users. However, it isn't like users aren't getting something in return for this. Users of facebook aren't 'useds', they are participants in a transaction. They are given a service they enjoy, and in return they grant their eyeballs for ads, and their data for targeting those ads. Now, we can argue whether users are aware of what they are trading, or if the trade is fair, but I think most people have a pretty good idea of how Facebook is making money.

superobserver 10y ago
You can hate the argument all you like; although such an emotionally charged term being levelled against the argument itself is curious but probably not particularly informative. It also doesn't change the way Facebook violates norms of privacy in a number of ways that should give people pause for thought, at any rate. RMS has put forward excellent reasons that detract from the use of the platform.
- superobserver 10y ago
  Cf. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_iram http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_iram
- cortesoft 10y ago
  I was not using the term 'hate' in the emotional sense. Perhaps a better choice of words would be to say that I find the argument disingenuous; almost everyone these days knows what Facebook does for a living, so to act like Facebook users are somehow being tricked is simply untrue.
pdonis 10y ago
> I think most people have a pretty good idea of how Facebook is making money. I don't. I think most people don't even think about how Facebook is making money. They just see that it doesn't cost them any money, and they think "oh, great, I can connect with people for free!" and use it without considering the costs or the bigger picture. This certainly describes practically everyone I know personally who uses Facebook.