11 ms·

This article is a joke, it's something I would expect to find on some tech/news gossip website. Is this what FSF has become? > so many sites — including TIME

by ryanto 16y ago

This article is a joke, it's something I would expect to find on some tech/news gossip website. Is this what FSF has become? > so many sites — including TIME — use Facebook's user-tracking "Like" button, Zuckerberg is able to collect information about people who aren't even users of his site. These are precedents which hurt our ability to freely connect with each other. He has created a network that is first and foremost a gold mine for government surveillance and advertisers. I would think just about any popular web site would be a gold mine for such information. It has nothing to do with Facebook. Doesn't this sentence hold true if we replace Facebook with Google? This seems like a tinfoil/scare everyone into believing Facebook is evil and out to get you. > and then maybe relays it to the intended destination, if it suits him. In some cases he does not — witness the recent reports of Facebook's messaging service blocking messages based on the words and links in them, because those links point to services which Facebook would prefer we not discuss. Comeon, examples/proof please. Is Facebook blocking URLs to competition or child porn sites? There is a pretty big difference here. I would think that the FSF should be on Facebook, trying to spread their message, gaining support, and discovering new users. They have an interesting problem, a lot of support, and some very big challenges ahead of them... and yet they spend time publishing articles like this and making fancy dislike buttons. FSF you should be ashamed.

jambo 16y ago
Facebook could (and probably does) collect the data necessary to track people around the web, whether or not they click on 'like buttons'. Whether other sites, like Google, can do this too, is immaterial. When people are logged into Facebook, an ever increasing slice of their browsing history can be logged and tied to their real identity. Almost none of the people I know who aren't hackers have any awareness of this.
- kprobst 16y ago
  > Whether other sites, like Google, can do this too, is immaterial. It's material if the FSF isn't putting up a "Google is evil" page on their website and handing out "Don't google me, bro" buttons, like they are doing with Facebook. The FSF seems to think it's better to attack Facebook with ideological ad corporatio arguments, rather than concentrate their resources on educating people about how to their services intelligently. Facebook isn't sharing anything about me that I don't want them to know. And I understand that if I'm not paying for it, I'm the product. So I don't give them my address or my phone number or my cat's nickname. And that's what I tell every friend and family member on Facebook. I don't tell them that Zuckerberg is "evil". The FSF has tried that before with other companies and you'd think they would have figured out by now that it simply doesn't work.
  - waqf 16y ago
    * ad corporationem
  - Natsu 16y ago
    Google isn't trying to grab all that data. And Google has worked with them to protect private data, including measures like shortening the time it takes them to anonymize the data they've collected. Facebook, meanwhile, is working to sell your entire social graph to advertisers for profit. If they're being singled out, it's because they're the worst of the lot.
- pak 16y ago
  Handy Chrome extension that blocks Like buttons and their ilk: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/ejpepffjfmamnambagiibghpglaidiec https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/ejpepffjfmamnamb... I've been using it for months... no regrets. And the web is generally faster because Facebook JS takes ages to load.
Natsu 16y ago
> Comeon, examples/proof please. You haven't been paying attention, have you? http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/facebook-blocks-lamebook/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/facebook-blocks-lamebook/ http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=31987371885&topic=14792&_fb_noscript=1 http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=31987371885&topic=... http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/84319/20101122/facebook-privacy-email-communication-technology.htm http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/84319/20101122/facebook-priv...
- rflrob 16y ago
  And it wasn't that hard to find those examples, was it? The problem with the statement in the original article is that it's not clear if they're referring to blocking torrent sites, or links to Diaspora. In the age of hypertext, it's just polite to link to examples inline, rather than making people hunt down what you're talking about.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    To be fair, there are so many examples that it's not unreasonable to expect that people reading the FSF's pages would be familiar with them. I don't think I listed all or even half of the relevant examples. Even so, you are correct in saying that it would make the piece stronger.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
hasenj 16y ago
> Is this what FSF has become? What do you mean? This is what FSF has always been like. They're shockingly zealots in defending absolute gpl-style freedom over all your digital goods. In all honesty I don't think a decentralized and "Free" facebook would work. The centralization is a feature that most people want; it's part of why it "just work" without you having to become a system (or a network) administrator. Imagine: Mom: How come I'm not receiving updates from your aunt anymore? You: Well, you have to wait for $INSERT_TECHNICAL_TERM to propagate or something. Mom: Do I have to enter her hash-thing again? or worse: Mom: I'm getting a lot of spam You: You have to install morton anti-spam social-edition Mom: It won't install. You: sigh here I come. It's like email, but much worse because it has way more features, and more ways for things to go wrong. Plus, I think Mark Zuckerberg actually donated money to the Diaspora project.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  The thing about the FSF is that they have been tremendously influential. Facebook runs on quite a number of technologies released under ... the FSF's GPL. By setting an extremely high bar, they've managed to get a lot of people to move towards that bar. Not as close as they'd like, I'm sure but much closer than they'd otherwise have moved. The FSF has made a priceless contribution whether or not we're going to see a world that conforms to their vision.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  Yes, he did. http://mashable.com/2010/05/28/zuckerberg-diaspora/ http://mashable.com/2010/05/28/zuckerberg-diaspora/
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  As a developer of a decentralized social networking project (Appleseed), I think you have a misconception of how these projects work. Your mother will never have to manage any of that stuff. She'll just log in to socialsite.com and interact with your aunt, who's on othersite.org. If there's an issue with communication between them, the administrators of respective sites will deal with them. Your mom won't notice it anymore than when she notices Facebook's internal servers are experiencing a glitch. And honestly, people don't "want" centralization of social networking any more than they "wanted" the centralization that AOL featured over the decentralization of the web.
jedsmith 16y ago
> Is this what FSF has become? You mean there was a time when FSF didn't launch ideological arguments to demand that people use software from the GNU Project? I'm not picking a side, just pointing out that this is par for the course. If it isn't GPL, it's evil.
- nickbp 16y ago
  I don't get that impression from them at all. They maintain a very comprehensive and useful listing[1] of 3rd party licenses which goes over their histories, tradeoffs, and whether they're compatible with the GPL. And that compatibility is treated independently of whether they consider those licenses to be 'Free'. Of course they'd prefer use of their own licenses, but this self-interest takes a back seat to helping the overall ecosystem. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
- chalst 16y ago
  They've encouraged developers to use GPL, but they've never said it was bad to use BSD/Apache-licensed software. Their website uses the BSD-licensed nginx.
PakG1 16y ago
Reminds me of a fun little post regarding Google: http://whimsley.typepad.com/whimsley/2008/03/mr-googles-guid.html http://whimsley.typepad.com/whimsley/2008/03/mr-googles-guid... Fun quote from the post: No (said Google). That's what I mean - you really don't understand. You see, I don't care if people come and look at these hen scratches or not. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. As long as I can sell a few advertisements on that page of my guidebook I really don't care. After all, what better praise for a Guidebook than to help people find out what's wrong with it? Just leave your manuscript with me. I'll look after it. He held out his hand, imperious now. I felt disheveled after my long night. My brain was spinning. I could see no alternative. In a vain attempt to maintain some self-respect I drew myself up to my full height and pulled back my shoulders, adopting a bearing appropriate for my class. "All right Google. Here you go. Don't lose it now." "Thank you sir. You can be sure I won't lose it. I never do lose anything you know." I turned away from him and stumbled down the stairs. I had ended up giving him an order, and he had accepted it. Yet I could not shake the impression, even as he brought me a glass of sherry that evening in my sitting room, placing the silver tray beside me with deference, that Mr. Google - far from being a butler and travel guide - was more a master than a servant.

by ryanto 16y ago

jambo 16y ago

Facebook could (and probably does) collect the data necessary to track people around the web, whether or not they click on 'like buttons'. Whether other sites, like Google, can do this too, is immaterial. When people are logged into Facebook, an ever increasing slice of their browsing history can be logged and tied to their real identity. Almost none of the people I know who aren't hackers have any awareness of this.

kprobst 16y ago
> Whether other sites, like Google, can do this too, is immaterial. It's material if the FSF isn't putting up a "Google is evil" page on their website and handing out "Don't google me, bro" buttons, like they are doing with Facebook. The FSF seems to think it's better to attack Facebook with ideological ad corporatio arguments, rather than concentrate their resources on educating people about how to their services intelligently. Facebook isn't sharing anything about me that I don't want them to know. And I understand that if I'm not paying for it, I'm the product. So I don't give them my address or my phone number or my cat's nickname. And that's what I tell every friend and family member on Facebook. I don't tell them that Zuckerberg is "evil". The FSF has tried that before with other companies and you'd think they would have figured out by now that it simply doesn't work.
- waqf 16y ago
  * ad corporationem
- Natsu 16y ago
  Google isn't trying to grab all that data. And Google has worked with them to protect private data, including measures like shortening the time it takes them to anonymize the data they've collected. Facebook, meanwhile, is working to sell your entire social graph to advertisers for profit. If they're being singled out, it's because they're the worst of the lot.
pak 16y ago
Handy Chrome extension that blocks Like buttons and their ilk: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/ejpepffjfmamnambagiibghpglaidiec https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/ejpepffjfmamnamb... I've been using it for months... no regrets. And the web is generally faster because Facebook JS takes ages to load.

Natsu 16y ago

> Comeon, examples/proof please. You haven't been paying attention, have you? http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/facebook-blocks-lamebook/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/facebook-blocks-lamebook/ http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=31987371885&topic=14792&_fb_noscript=1 http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=31987371885&topic=... http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/84319/20101122/facebook-privacy-email-communication-technology.htm http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/84319/20101122/facebook-priv...

rflrob 16y ago
And it wasn't that hard to find those examples, was it? The problem with the statement in the original article is that it's not clear if they're referring to blocking torrent sites, or links to Diaspora. In the age of hypertext, it's just polite to link to examples inline, rather than making people hunt down what you're talking about.
- Natsu 16y ago
  To be fair, there are so many examples that it's not unreasonable to expect that people reading the FSF's pages would be familiar with them. I don't think I listed all or even half of the relevant examples. Even so, you are correct in saying that it would make the piece stronger.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

hasenj 16y ago

> Is this what FSF has become? What do you mean? This is what FSF has always been like. They're shockingly zealots in defending absolute gpl-style freedom over all your digital goods. In all honesty I don't think a decentralized and "Free" facebook would work. The centralization is a feature that most people want; it's part of why it "just work" without you having to become a system (or a network) administrator. Imagine: Mom: How come I'm not receiving updates from your aunt anymore? You: Well, you have to wait for $INSERT_TECHNICAL_TERM to propagate or something. Mom: Do I have to enter her hash-thing again? or worse: Mom: I'm getting a lot of spam You: You have to install morton anti-spam social-edition Mom: It won't install. You: sigh here I come. It's like email, but much worse because it has way more features, and more ways for things to go wrong. Plus, I think Mark Zuckerberg actually donated money to the Diaspora project.

joe_the_user 16y ago
The thing about the FSF is that they have been tremendously influential. Facebook runs on quite a number of technologies released under ... the FSF's GPL. By setting an extremely high bar, they've managed to get a lot of people to move towards that bar. Not as close as they'd like, I'm sure but much closer than they'd otherwise have moved. The FSF has made a priceless contribution whether or not we're going to see a world that conforms to their vision.
jedsmith 16y ago
Yes, he did. http://mashable.com/2010/05/28/zuckerberg-diaspora/ http://mashable.com/2010/05/28/zuckerberg-diaspora/
michaelchisari 16y ago
As a developer of a decentralized social networking project (Appleseed), I think you have a misconception of how these projects work. Your mother will never have to manage any of that stuff. She'll just log in to socialsite.com and interact with your aunt, who's on othersite.org. If there's an issue with communication between them, the administrators of respective sites will deal with them. Your mom won't notice it anymore than when she notices Facebook's internal servers are experiencing a glitch. And honestly, people don't "want" centralization of social networking any more than they "wanted" the centralization that AOL featured over the decentralization of the web.

jedsmith 16y ago

> Is this what FSF has become? You mean there was a time when FSF didn't launch ideological arguments to demand that people use software from the GNU Project? I'm not picking a side, just pointing out that this is par for the course. If it isn't GPL, it's evil.

nickbp 16y ago
I don't get that impression from them at all. They maintain a very comprehensive and useful listing[1] of 3rd party licenses which goes over their histories, tradeoffs, and whether they're compatible with the GPL. And that compatibility is treated independently of whether they consider those licenses to be 'Free'. Of course they'd prefer use of their own licenses, but this self-interest takes a back seat to helping the overall ecosystem. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
chalst 16y ago
They've encouraged developers to use GPL, but they've never said it was bad to use BSD/Apache-licensed software. Their website uses the BSD-licensed nginx.

PakG1 16y ago

Reminds me of a fun little post regarding Google: http://whimsley.typepad.com/whimsley/2008/03/mr-googles-guid.html http://whimsley.typepad.com/whimsley/2008/03/mr-googles-guid... Fun quote from the post: No (said Google). That's what I mean - you really don't understand. You see, I don't care if people come and look at these hen scratches or not. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. As long as I can sell a few advertisements on that page of my guidebook I really don't care. After all, what better praise for a Guidebook than to help people find out what's wrong with it? Just leave your manuscript with me. I'll look after it. He held out his hand, imperious now. I felt disheveled after my long night. My brain was spinning. I could see no alternative. In a vain attempt to maintain some self-respect I drew myself up to my full height and pulled back my shoulders, adopting a bearing appropriate for my class. "All right Google. Here you go. Don't lose it now." "Thank you sir. You can be sure I won't lose it. I never do lose anything you know." I turned away from him and stumbled down the stairs. I had ended up giving him an order, and he had accepted it. Yet I could not shake the impression, even as he brought me a glass of sherry that evening in my sitting room, placing the silver tray beside me with deference, that Mr. Google - far from being a butler and travel guide - was more a master than a servant.