37 ms·

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 lur

by 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
      > But are you saying that "user" is a perspective that is justified simply by the fact that the used has an advantage from Facebook? As for any other product or service. > Why should he? And doesn't he? Did you not understand him that you think he should express himself clearer? Stallman says: We call them "useds" rather than "users" because Facebook is using them, not vice versa. This is provably wrong: people use Facebook and get a marginal advantage out of it that is arguably on par with what Facebook gets from them. By the way, I agree with much of Stallman's criticism of FB. I do have an account there but seldom, if ever, open it (I also use a tracker blocker to stop them from tracking my navigation). But apparently a lot of people likes it, and find it a valuable addition to their lives.
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.

by Udik 10y ago

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
    > But are you saying that "user" is a perspective that is justified simply by the fact that the used has an advantage from Facebook? As for any other product or service. > Why should he? And doesn't he? Did you not understand him that you think he should express himself clearer? Stallman says: We call them "useds" rather than "users" because Facebook is using them, not vice versa. This is provably wrong: people use Facebook and get a marginal advantage out of it that is arguably on par with what Facebook gets from them. By the way, I agree with much of Stallman's criticism of FB. I do have an account there but seldom, if ever, open it (I also use a tracker blocker to stop them from tracking my navigation). But apparently a lot of people likes it, and find it a valuable addition to their lives.

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.