4 ms·

Stallman hates the internet. What's bad about: Airbnb | Amazon | Amtrak | Ancestry | Apple | Ebooks | Eventbrite | Evernote | Facebook | Google | Intel | Linke

by jijojv 9y ago

fishsaysno 9y ago
Yeah. And he explains why. Every other day I find myself saying "Stallman was right".
Spivak 9y ago
Stallman loves the internet. He very openly hates the modern commercialized internet which disrespects, spys on, disimpowers and manipulates users chasing financial gain and 'engagement'.
tehlike 9y ago
Give the man a credit. There's merit to what he says. He understands the slippery slope argument, he understand what giving away freedom & privacy could lead to. He's right most often. You might disagree with his extreme attitude, but eventually it comes down to: Is he telling some truth?
anta40 9y ago
So he explains some reasons why we should not use Facebook. Fine. Next question is: do we have alternatives? You know, the "libre/FOSS" version? GNU social or Diaspora, maybe?
- LinuxBender 9y ago
  This is just my opinion, but I think the answer starts with first replacing authentication mechanisms, thus allowing any group of people to try different social apps, forums and chat servers using their common auth. In my Utopian world, small groups of technical people would host OpenLDAP servers and replicas. They would front end them with some open source SAML2/OAuth providers. That would allow them as a small group to have forums, chat servers, blogs, email, etc... Their circle of non technical friends could then utilize all the services the technical folks share the support of. If the LDAP master drops out, someone else promotes their replica to master. Why all this? No nation state back doors and potentially less risk if people reuse passwords, since this group can also host email.

by jijojv 9y ago

fishsaysno 9y ago

Yeah. And he explains why. Every other day I find myself saying "Stallman was right".

Spivak 9y ago

Stallman loves the internet. He very openly hates the modern commercialized internet which disrespects, spys on, disimpowers and manipulates users chasing financial gain and 'engagement'.

tehlike 9y ago

Give the man a credit. There's merit to what he says. He understands the slippery slope argument, he understand what giving away freedom & privacy could lead to. He's right most often. You might disagree with his extreme attitude, but eventually it comes down to: Is he telling some truth?

anta40 9y ago

So he explains some reasons why we should not use Facebook. Fine. Next question is: do we have alternatives? You know, the "libre/FOSS" version? GNU social or Diaspora, maybe?

LinuxBender 9y ago
This is just my opinion, but I think the answer starts with first replacing authentication mechanisms, thus allowing any group of people to try different social apps, forums and chat servers using their common auth. In my Utopian world, small groups of technical people would host OpenLDAP servers and replicas. They would front end them with some open source SAML2/OAuth providers. That would allow them as a small group to have forums, chat servers, blogs, email, etc... Their circle of non technical friends could then utilize all the services the technical folks share the support of. If the LDAP master drops out, someone else promotes their replica to master. Why all this? No nation state back doors and potentially less risk if people reuse passwords, since this group can also host email.