7 ms·

IMO this is a side product of the "software must be free" mentality. Frankly, software should not be free. When you let people give you things for free, you ba

by hasenj 10y ago

IMO this is a side product of the "software must be free" mentality. Frankly, software should not be free. When you let people give you things for free, you basically let them control you and take away your freedom.

wu-ikkyu 10y ago
>When you let people give you things for free, you basically let them control you and take away your freedom. How is this different from proprietary software? Where you have no idea what's going on under the hood? Granted, "giving in order to get" is a common and effective social engineering tactic.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > How is this different from proprietary software? Most free software is proprietary software! Big chunks of Facebook's code base is proprietary, and the data they collect is extremely proprietary. Ditto for google. By "the expectation that software should be free", parent meant the expectation that you don't pay money for access to a hosted copy.
- ksk 10y ago
  I believe the OP was talking about cost, not source code.
CaptainZapp 10y ago
I'd wager that the FSF disagrees with your statement.
- mynameisvlad 10y ago
  You don't say. Of course the Free Software Foundation is going to disagree with that statement.
  - jcbrand 10y ago
    The "Free" refers to freedom, not price. Facebook is not freedom-respecting software as defined by the FSF.
newbie2017 10y ago
>IMO this is a side product of the "software must be free" mentality. "Software must be free" usually means free and in speech not free as in beer.
- simplehuman 10y ago
  Free as in beer
  - newbie2017 10y ago
    Thanks for the correction.
- hasenj 10y ago
  RMS definition of free still leads to free as in beer because it requires that the user has the freedom to distribute the sides for free (as in beer).
  - newbie2017 10y ago
    But Facebook is not "free as in speech" but is "free as in beer". That's why it is a "Structural Threat."
xatan_dank 10y ago
This is absolutely not true. There's so much wrong with that argument and how it applies to Facebook it's hard for me to provide decent criticism, but I'll try anyway. Facebook is not provided 'for free'. Nothing is. Facebook is provided to users in exchange for their personal and social data. Facebook is also not really 'a thing'- it's much more complicated than that. The worst part of your argument is that this criticism of free software also holds true for proprietary software- there are plenty of nonfree services which do the same thing. More generally, 'free' software as you define and apply it is not a useful categorization of software to make. What about freemium services? Are those free or do you pay for those? Whether or not you pay in currency for a software license is not really meaningful in the discussion of user freedom. I recommend you actually do some reading on the topic of software freedom and Facebook before you go spouting completely unfounded aphorisms online again.
lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
So better pay for the privilege? There's no reason a paid social network service (aside from the fact that no one would ever use it) wouldn't collect the same information. The issue is that Facebook is not free (as in libre) so users don't have personal control of their information.
- timthelion 10y ago
  In fact, paid services such as AOL and Oracle have EVEN WORSE track records when it comes to lock in, privacy, and abuse of users.
inimino 10y ago
Facebook is not software, it is a service.
- bahjoite 10y ago
  Service as a Software Substitute, as RMS would put it.
  - inimino 10y ago
    RMS is fond of making up "cute" names for things. It lets people identify themselves as part of the tribe. OP is complaining about free services (like Facebook) but said free software (like PHP) so the whole comment is a non-starter. I'm not sure why nobody else pointed that out... Facebook has huge operating expenses.

by hasenj 10y ago

wu-ikkyu 10y ago

>When you let people give you things for free, you basically let them control you and take away your freedom. How is this different from proprietary software? Where you have no idea what's going on under the hood? Granted, "giving in order to get" is a common and effective social engineering tactic.

throwaway729 10y ago
> How is this different from proprietary software? Most free software is proprietary software! Big chunks of Facebook's code base is proprietary, and the data they collect is extremely proprietary. Ditto for google. By "the expectation that software should be free", parent meant the expectation that you don't pay money for access to a hosted copy.
ksk 10y ago
I believe the OP was talking about cost, not source code.

CaptainZapp 10y ago

I'd wager that the FSF disagrees with your statement.

mynameisvlad 10y ago
You don't say. Of course the Free Software Foundation is going to disagree with that statement.
- jcbrand 10y ago
  The "Free" refers to freedom, not price. Facebook is not freedom-respecting software as defined by the FSF.

newbie2017 10y ago

>IMO this is a side product of the "software must be free" mentality. "Software must be free" usually means free and in speech not free as in beer.

simplehuman 10y ago
Free as in beer
- newbie2017 10y ago
  Thanks for the correction.
hasenj 10y ago
RMS definition of free still leads to free as in beer because it requires that the user has the freedom to distribute the sides for free (as in beer).
- newbie2017 10y ago
  But Facebook is not "free as in speech" but is "free as in beer". That's why it is a "Structural Threat."

xatan_dank 10y ago

This is absolutely not true. There's so much wrong with that argument and how it applies to Facebook it's hard for me to provide decent criticism, but I'll try anyway. Facebook is not provided 'for free'. Nothing is. Facebook is provided to users in exchange for their personal and social data. Facebook is also not really 'a thing'- it's much more complicated than that. The worst part of your argument is that this criticism of free software also holds true for proprietary software- there are plenty of nonfree services which do the same thing. More generally, 'free' software as you define and apply it is not a useful categorization of software to make. What about freemium services? Are those free or do you pay for those? Whether or not you pay in currency for a software license is not really meaningful in the discussion of user freedom. I recommend you actually do some reading on the topic of software freedom and Facebook before you go spouting completely unfounded aphorisms online again.

lordCarbonFiber 10y ago

So better pay for the privilege? There's no reason a paid social network service (aside from the fact that no one would ever use it) wouldn't collect the same information. The issue is that Facebook is not free (as in libre) so users don't have personal control of their information.

timthelion 10y ago
In fact, paid services such as AOL and Oracle have EVEN WORSE track records when it comes to lock in, privacy, and abuse of users.

inimino 10y ago

Facebook is not software, it is a service.

bahjoite 10y ago
Service as a Software Substitute, as RMS would put it.
- inimino 10y ago
  RMS is fond of making up "cute" names for things. It lets people identify themselves as part of the tribe. OP is complaining about free services (like Facebook) but said free software (like PHP) so the whole comment is a non-starter. I'm not sure why nobody else pointed that out... Facebook has huge operating expenses.