4 ms·

I think you are validating RMS' approach without realizing it. Take the perspective that potatoes use us to reproduces themselves: Viewing things from that pers

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.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      > As for any other product or service. So, what was your objection to saying "used" again, if that same justification can be used for both? > 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. Well, you say that that is provably wrong. But where is the proof? > But apparently a lot of people likes it, and find it a valuable addition to their lives. Which sounds like an argument that you could use to justify any status quo? Aren't you effectively saying that the fact that something is the way it is indicates that people value that it is the way it is and that therefore people couldn't possibly want it any other way? Couldn't it be that people aren't aware of possible alternative realities and thus haven't ever thought about how they would value those in comparison to what they currently have, for example?
      - Udik 10y ago
        >> As for any other product or service. >So, what was your objection to saying "used" again, if that same justification can be used for both? My dear amass of eukaryotic cells, you non super-intelligent consumer of oxygen and precious resources, polluter of the environment, when you choose to emphasise in an unusual way some perfectly normal aspects of an object (* ), you do it to provoke an emotional response. And I like rational discourses, not emotional ones. [* unless this provides an explanatory value, which in this case doesn't, as most of Stallman's points are unrelated to the user/used issue] >> 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. >Well, you say that that is provably wrong. But where is the proof? You can just ask people if they like to use Facebook, if they get any value from it. Most of those who use it regularly will say they do. End of the proof. > Couldn't it be that people aren't aware of possible alternative realities and thus haven't ever thought about how they would value those in comparison to what they currently have, for example? Of course it is like that. You aren't aware yourself that there are many better things to do than roaming the forums of YCombinator, and yet I bet you find some value in the action, and the (sure) existence of unexplored alternatives is not per se sufficient to negate this value.
programmer_man 10y ago
Perhaps it is we who are the potatoes.

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.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    > As for any other product or service. So, what was your objection to saying "used" again, if that same justification can be used for both? > 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. Well, you say that that is provably wrong. But where is the proof? > But apparently a lot of people likes it, and find it a valuable addition to their lives. Which sounds like an argument that you could use to justify any status quo? Aren't you effectively saying that the fact that something is the way it is indicates that people value that it is the way it is and that therefore people couldn't possibly want it any other way? Couldn't it be that people aren't aware of possible alternative realities and thus haven't ever thought about how they would value those in comparison to what they currently have, for example?
    - Udik 10y ago
      >> As for any other product or service. >So, what was your objection to saying "used" again, if that same justification can be used for both? My dear amass of eukaryotic cells, you non super-intelligent consumer of oxygen and precious resources, polluter of the environment, when you choose to emphasise in an unusual way some perfectly normal aspects of an object (* ), you do it to provoke an emotional response. And I like rational discourses, not emotional ones. [* unless this provides an explanatory value, which in this case doesn't, as most of Stallman's points are unrelated to the user/used issue] >> 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. >Well, you say that that is provably wrong. But where is the proof? You can just ask people if they like to use Facebook, if they get any value from it. Most of those who use it regularly will say they do. End of the proof. > Couldn't it be that people aren't aware of possible alternative realities and thus haven't ever thought about how they would value those in comparison to what they currently have, for example? Of course it is like that. You aren't aware yourself that there are many better things to do than roaming the forums of YCombinator, and yet I bet you find some value in the action, and the (sure) existence of unexplored alternatives is not per se sufficient to negate this value.

programmer_man 10y ago

Perhaps it is we who are the potatoes.