10 ms·

I honestly don't understand why people value Stallman's opinions on these matters so highly. I completely disagree with him on essentially everything he writes

I honestly don't understand why people value Stallman's opinions on these matters so highly. I completely disagree with him on essentially everything he writes about these topics. Granted, he's an incredible programmer who contributed immensely to the development of our modern operating systems and the tools we use, and people here love to bring that up ("what - you DON'T KNOW WHO STALLMAN IS? SHAME? HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE HIM?") Does this make his opinion on Facebook or privacy or freedom any more correct or valid? No. Just like I wouldn't listen to Usain Bolt if he were trying to teach me the biological mechanisms behind doping, I can't see why Stallman's opinion is considered so correct in these matters. IMO his ramblings about personal liberties and freedom being infringed by everything under the sun from Amazon to Google to Facebook are oversimplified and childish. The world isn't black and white and he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies. When Facebook makes you use a real name it's not because theres some "Mr. Evil" at the top level plotting to steal your freedom, it's because it leads to a better working social network. Just his description of AirBnB is ridiculous: "Airbnb requires you to run nonfree software (an app, or Javascript). It puts you in a data base easily available to Big Brother (just like a hotel)." That's an immensely stupid argument, because any _viable_ company that wants to provide a service that a consumer other than Stallman himself will use will "infringe" on those two idiotic requirements. TL;DR. Just because he did something amazing in one field/area, doesn't mean he is not spewing complete BS. For a similar example, see: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-jam...

hobs 12y ago
There is literally 100 different links on that page, and you disagree with all of them? Stallman is an ideologue 100%, but if I had to choose Facebook or Stallman, I know which side I am on. (and I dont produce OSS or follow their belief system) Facebook wants a real name because it makes them money more readily when they can identify you more easily and determine your value, not whatever "a better social network" means. Just because Usain Bolt may not have a degree in biology, if he is also saying factual things, that does not make him wrong.
- walterbell 12y ago
  Real names help Facebook to combine offline purchase activity (Axciom) with online activity.
- michaelmior 12y ago
  Actually, there's literally 78 different links on that page ;)
kragen 12y ago
People value Stallman’s opinions on these matters so highly because he has a remarkable history of being right about them ten or fifteen years before it becomes clear to everyone else that he was right, and he takes the risk of saying what he sees even when it will offend people. In fact, that’s why he’s famous; he’s certainly a good hacker, but the world has quite a number of good hackers who aren’t famous because they didn’t notice the political and social aspects of what they were doing the way Stallman did. I am not going to bother to rebut your examples in detail, but I will say that I seriously doubt that you were present when Facebook decided on its names policy or that you have much access to information about what effects it has had, and you seem to think companies didn’t exist before 1995.
- MCRed 12y ago
  Can you give an example? For instance, I was aware of Stallman in the 1980s, read his writings back then, didn't think they were correct, and the future he predicted has not come to be. Yes there are some of us who are that old. Specifically, he said that without the virility of his license, there would be no free/open source software and that all software would be locked down and proprietary. The entire open source movement is a disproof of stallman's position from that period. He has repeatedly claimed that companies won't contribute to open source, and so you have to force them to with the GNU license, and yet history has disproven this one. Given that this is pretty much the central tenant of his ideology, and it has been markedly disproven over the past 30 years, I too wonder why people listen to him.
  - yuhong 12y ago
    Not always true, especially back in the early days.
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    Stallman predicted the total surveillance state, and warned of the very dire circumstances it put us all in.
    - wanda 12y ago
muyuu 12y ago
I disagree with Stallman on many things but I cannot see anything wrong with that collection of real issues about Facebook, and also with the general message that most people should avoid using Facebook completely or use it exclusively with fake identities and several other provisions.
- stinos 12y ago
  This. For instance the "Psychological Harm" chapter. That is not even an opinion, rather a fact, so I feel the OP's 'disagree with essentially everything he writes about it' is too strong - you cannot disagree with facts. Actually a lot of what Stallman writes on that page are just facts, and a lot of them also apply to tons of other services on the web. Maybe not all at once though which why he picked FB I guess.. Still in debate with myself though on whether I agree with his strong opinion on it or whether it's even worth having such a strong opinion on it. There are way worse things in the world than FB.
  - killerpopiller 12y ago
    and still you talk about him like a pariah. I really don't get the resentiment here about RS. What has he done to you americans? Bursting the bubble of harmless tech? I say americans cause I am sure, if we would make a poll, those who disregard RS points, without even try to proof the opposite, seem to be US. What if Peter Thiel or Paul Graham would have compiled such a list. Cheering waves of agreement I figure.
    - stinos 12y ago
      You've got it wrong. Not sure why you think I'm talking about him like a pariah but that is certainly not my intent. I don't treat him, or anybody else I barely know, in a special way; especially not like a pariah. I don't understand how you think based just on what I wrote that I have any special feelings in any directions about Stallman? In fact I barely read any articles from Stallman nor know much about him. Let alone I'd let some general opinion about him color my opinion on this article. I can assure you what I wrote above was based solely on this article and as objectively as possible. And basically all I said was "true facts, but not sure I agree everybody should just ditch FB based on this". Oh yeah, I'm not even American but European. Although again: I do not think that matters much? Why do you think it does (honest question - you seem to have a strong idea that somehow the US is against him and others aren't. May I ask why?)
rdtsc 12y ago
> Does this make his opinion on Facebook or privacy or freedom any more correct or valid? No. And whose opinions are correct on the topic? Who should we listen to then? Opinions are opionions and we can all evaluate them. Hopefully we can evaluate them objectively regardless who came up with them. > he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies. He doesn't huh. Ok, if it is so obvious, can you list the things he doesn't understand. > it's because it leads to a better working social network. Granted, pretty much every single loss of privacy rule (or law) has been under the guise of "oh but this is good for you actually". > _viable_ company that wants to provide a service that a consumer other than Stallman himself will use will "infringe" on those two idiotic requirements. Really? Ok let's see, I launch my editor, I type in some code, then save it and compile. I just got a service provided to me by the authors of those programs and it might seem idiotic, but I value that service and value that I ran free software and didn't have to send my name to anyone to register that I did that.
- michaelmior 12y ago
  You said that your editor is free software, meaning that no one made money on you using it. I'm not sure how this refutes the point about a "_viable_ company." (Given that viable necessarily includes making money.)
  - domenzain 12y ago
    I suspect rdtsc meant free as in freedom. There are several companies successfully founded and running on free software. An example I saw recently is the French telecommunications provider Free. Much of the software running on their set-top-boxes is licensed under GPL and they provide the source code as required by the licence. They have dealt serious damage to more traditionally minded companies. Invasion of privacy is not a requisite for company viability.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    RedHat is a very _viable_ company that uses and writes free software for example.
nitrogen 12y ago
Does this make his opinion on Facebook or privacy or freedom any more correct or valid? No. Respect for Stallman's opinions derives not from his code, but from his consistency in adhering to his (extreme) principles and correctly seeing how those principles are affected by new developments in technology. He's right about DRM because DRM, not because Emacs. Time will show what else he's right about. Living like Stallman does may not be practical, but that doesn't make him wrong.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>I honestly don't understand why people value Stallman's opinions on these matters so highly. I consider the Snowden revelations a cast iron validation of his so-called paranoia. He was in a small minority back then, and the revelations proved him right. That counts for a lot. >Just like I wouldn't listen to Usain Bolt Who should we listen to then? You?
valvar 12y ago
I think, that if you look a bit closer, you'll be able to discern exactly why Stallman's 'BS' is deemed more acceptable than Watson's 'BS'.
manigandham 12y ago
I'm with you. Seems like FUD here with this post, there are a few decent ideas about privacy but its a social network and used for connecting to people. Maybe they can relax the real name policy some more but I have plenty of friends that don't use their actual real/legal name and never had a problem. There are effective privacy controls in place now and things like being served ads is such a silly issue to complain about... it's a business that needs to make money, how else is that supposed to happen? What is the overall point at the end of this? Basically we should all just be anonymous forever? Facebook is just a decade old, society/culture is still catching up and we really don't need all this doom/gloom every time. And yea, I didn't know who this guy was until this post.
- icebraining 12y ago
  I have plenty of friends that don't use their actual real/legal name and never had a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement things like being served ads is such a silly issue to complain about... it's a business that needs to make money, how else is that supposed to happen? Hum, charge people? What is the overall point at the end of this? "Don't use Facebook." I thought that was clear.
  - manigandham 12y ago
    Fine, the real name policy is a fuzzy issue and not really fit for discussion here. Charging people doesn't work since most people want the convenience and ability to communicate with friends but don't want to pay for it. Not a viable model for Facebook. I'm sure you don't just browse the web and offer to pay every site you visit do you? "Don't use Facebook" is not the point, this is all about fear of privacy in general and just targeted at Facebook but much of it is FUD.
    - aros 12y ago
      People are paying to use Facebook. Are you suggesting that they aren't?
- 12y ago
detaro 12y ago
His opinions(!) provide an useful reference point, especially since I can trust that they are on one extreme end of the spectrum. I certainly don't agree with all of them, but they make me think about where I make concessions and where I maybe missed that. I rather read an opinion and decide "no, I won't go that far/that is ok for me" instead of being told "all is fine".
- gbog 12y ago
  Some of RMS opinions are extreme, because they take to an unbearable point some consequence of some ideology. For example refusing to have kids is extreme, most people cannot afford psychologically to not have kids. But RMS opinions about Facebook are not extreme, he doesn't propose to refuse to have friends who are using Facebook, for example. He says just don't use it, it's common sense, just like don't eat fast food is common sense. Common sense is sometimes very uncommon, kudos to those who keep their mind clear in our messy times.
  - detaro 12y ago
    "Don't use Facebook" is currently not common sense. Many people are on Facebook and have thought about all these arguments and decided it is worth it to them. (In the meantime, fewer people seem to consider it common sense to be on Facebook, at least it seems to me less and less people are surprised if someone doesn't use it)
    - gbog 12y ago
      Well, I'm reading the Histoire de la Revolution Francaise (Michelet) right now, and something very stunning is that everyone, even the most faithful revolutionnaries, was still "royalist" in 1790. They all had "thought about all these arguments and decided it is worth it to them", because of perceived "common sense". Being a republican was considered extreme even in the left wing of the nascent Assemblee Nationale. And a few month later, it became obvious that monarchy needed to be definitely removed from the Nation, and "common sense" changed to the opposite. So the real common sense (i.e. the "right way to think about it") was to be republican. Another example is abolition of death penalty in France by Mitterand: right now we French/Europeans believe it is very barbarian to still have Justice use this gothic expedient, and rightly so if you ask me. But just before its abolition polls showed most people opposed the abolition. A new, better "common sense" replaced an old habit falsy believed to follow "common sense". So back to Facebook: right now most people do not know it, but it is not unlikely that the retrospective "common sense" of the future will be to avoid Facebook today. And I think a much saner regulation on what can be advertised and sold as food to human being in the US will also be retrospective common sense. And not driving cars is also common sense. The list is quite long... [edited typos and grammar]
ffn 12y ago
Most people don't view Stallman's words as gospel, he's actually kind of a running joke nowadays - a sort of the caricature of the software profession, all neckbeard, tin-foil, and wizard powers. And it is true a lot of Stallman's ideas are sadly unrealistic for a large corporation operating in many highly complex environments. And although nearly every single point on his rant regarding facebook's policies is ridiculous as an argument against using facebook (except the psychology study one), I do absolutely agree with him that folks should, with enough time and introspection, grow out of using facebook personally (professional use is fine). The fact of the matter is facebook gives you the illusion of personal connection and being "always in the know" so you short-circuit that reward-loop in your brain and wind up with an addiction. It's just like drugs, alcohol, video games, or any host of other addictive activities out there for us to waste our lives on. Granted it's fun at first, but after a while, one needs to realize one has become a slave to a rather meaningless habit (checking your feed, updating your status, "liking" shit) that doesn't make you better, richer, or any more intimate with another. Instead, you've sat at your computer for another evening, poor-ifying the circulation in your legs, watching the highlights of other people living their lives, and feeling mildly displeased with yourself yet not enough to ever look away. Instead of facebook, you could've did leg day at the gym and gotten better glutes, hiked to the beach and communed with nature, joined a crossfit class and paid to irreparably hurt yourself, or even got some work done on your hobby project. Facebook is literally wasting you away for the promise of social fulfillment that it can't fulfill. After all when it comes to social connection, facebook is far inferior to actually meeting up for a date, direct call/skype, text/im/email... hell, in a lot of ways Facebook is worse than video games because, when you're playing a video game with friends, at least you're all working together on a common platform (especially if it's one of those Kinect dancing games, nothing brings people closer than watching each other dance awkwardly). Instead, you're on facebook, ruminating over ghosts of people and events that have already passed by you, thinking you're together and connected with all your friends, yet still miserably yourself in front of your computer with nothing to show for it. Also, one can stand to look at only so many pics of receipts from super expensive restaurants by friends who have just recently gone and are gushing over the food like some 12 year old fangirl over a boyish pop idol.
- russgray 12y ago
spain 12y ago
>Just like I wouldn't listen to Usain Bolt if he were trying to teach me the biological mechanisms behind doping, I can't see why Stallman's opinion is considered so correct in these matters. That's a false analogy. Stallman has been fighting for our digital rights for ages and has actually been right most of the time. That doesn't make him right all the time, but it does make me more inclined to believe he isn't just spewing nonsense. >IMO his ramblings about personal liberties and freedom being infringed by everything under the sun from Amazon to Google to Facebook are oversimplified and childish. The world isn't black and white and he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies. He has to be that way, because otherwise he would be seen as a hypocrite. It is interesting you think his arguments are "childish" when it seems every day more and more of his arguments are proven true when we find out how another company is using our data for malicious purposes. >When Facebook makes you use a real name it's not because theres some "Mr. Evil" at the top level plotting to steal your freedom, it's because it leads to a better working social network. You are correct in assuming that there is most likely no "Mr. Evil" at the top, however that assumes that ordinary good people aren't capable of collectively and unknowingly becoming "Mr. Evil" through their actions, which our knowledge of psychology would point out is more than likely.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  > has actually been right most of the time That is a matter of opinion, and I think that is where most disagreement stems from. In the HN echo chamber it may seem like everyone agrees he was right, but the rest of the world is not nearly as much in agreement.
blawa 12y ago
Oh well, just what I was fearing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201896 In 2 mins, you're the top comment How about actually disproving his arguments one by one. The world is not black and white is a bad statement to make. How about your pull up your panties and try to make it better, rather than giving useless arguments.
- xxxyy 12y ago
  This thread shows the big thing that is wrong with today's HN. There is a guy presenting a list of 49 arguments against using a service that is used by one billion people globally. Some of them are pretty good, some more sucky than the others. Yet, the discussion focuses only on the person. It's like the people here could not process the raw facts and derive their own conclusions, and had to fall back to their emotional brains. Certainly not a thing I would expect from HN community. There is a really long way from this attitude to the PG's essay. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Well, I've been around for almost four years now, and I'm not sure HN has ever been different since then. That said, I agree with you, but rms as a way of increasing that response. I think that if he wrote that the Earth orbits the Sun, someone would make a passionate argument for geocentrism.
Create 12y ago
We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world. This should not actually be a complicated inquiry. http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html I honestly don't understand why people value Stallman's opinions on these matters so highly. https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRe... https://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-thought-requires-free-media https://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-... Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself. http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999
vixen99 12y ago
Isn't the piece mostly a series of correct observations (if they are not, no doubt someone will point this out) about Facebook from which one can come to one's own conclusions? I'm not interested in your views on Stallman himself. BTW Usain Bolt and anyone else is welcome to present a cogent argued position on the biology of drug doping if that's what he can do. I fail to see where 'teaching' comes into this discussion.
killerpopiller 12y ago
sorry, but your comment is trolling! You just claim RS isn't "right" and name others who aren't "right" either - in your unfounded oppionion. RS lists examples of FB malpractice, abuse of power and in contrast to your trash talk he is linking proof to each claim.
SeanDav 12y ago
Sounds like you could be a poster child for 1984. In your keenness to try discredit what Stallman is saying you cherry pick a few examples and completely avoid most of the far more serious issues raised here. I can only hope that if the day comes when the authorities come lock up 1 of your family members because of something they did not even post, but started writing then changed their minds and deleted it, you remember your blind support and lack of critical thinking on this occasion.
pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
Of course this would be the most upvoted comment on HN
tripzilch 12y ago
> people here love to bring that up ("what - you DON'T KNOW WHO STALLMAN IS? SHAME? HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE HIM?") I have never seen anyone on HN say that or anything similar. Maybe you were thinking of some other place? For myself, I've been giving Stallman's opinions a lot more weight since the Snowden revelations, since at that point a great many of his ideas instantly switched from "over-idealistic / ridiculous / almost paranoid" to "well what do you know, he actually was right all along!". I am myself quite idealistic and concerned about privacy, free and/or open source software, personal liberties, etc. I just used to think Stallman was taking it a bit too far to the crazy side. Then Snowden happened and it turns out he was right about a lot of the things that I really thought went a bit too far "out there". Not all of the things, mind you, but enough of them to make me pause and give thought to his opinions, and try to take them seriously. And it's probably my own bias, but on HN as well, it seems to me that his name and ideas have been discussed quite a bit more often after Snowden, than before.
fit2rule 12y ago
What purpose does it serve to denigrate Stallman for his efforts?
facepalm 12y ago
I don't understand why your comment is voted up so much because you only seem to provide an opinion ("I don't understand...") and take 10 paragraphs for it.
- notum 12y ago
  Flawed ranking algorithm. It's the replies that vote him up.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    Oh, didn't know that replies also count as votes - are you sure?
    - notum 12y ago
      Nope! But I suspect reply owners, even if in disagreement, hit the upvote button to buy more eyeballs. I may or may have not upvoted your comment.
vacri 12y ago
For a similar example, see: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-jam.. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-jam.... Watson claiming he can't get work in biology because of his racist views is nothing like Stallman, whose primary job is the speaking circuit talking about his views. You're saying that the thing that people voluntarily pay Stallman to do is the thing that he knows nothing about and should be shunned for.
andmarios 12y ago
Indeed, you don't know who Stallman is. His most important work isn't the software but the Free Software movement, the GPL license and the Free Software Foundation. Sure, we all like emacs and gcc but these were just Stallman putting his money where his mouth is. Stallman made the first commits to these and many more programs but it was the thousands of programmers who accepted his ideas and made them what they are today. Of course you are free to criticize him, but portraying him like Usain Bolt trying to teach the biological mechanisms behind doping shows a certain degree of ignorance.
evook 12y ago
> because any _viable_ company that wants to provide a service that a consumer other than Stallman himself will use will "infringe" on those two idiotic requirements. I work for a data center operator and ISP and our customer database is air gapped. We're in the business for 18 years now.
krapp 12y ago
Richard Stallman does have a cult of personality around him who seem willing to defend his prescience and infallibility to the detriment of critical thinking and common sense. However, while I think he is off base on a couple of points here (the "Psychological Harm" argument, in particular, seems like a cricitism of the vanity of youth and gamification, the latter of which is worth criticizing,) one doesn't need to be paranoid to see that much of what he mentions is at least worth considering. And he doesn't mention much, it's basically a list of links about Facebook's business practices, and many of the issues he presents apply to social media in general since so many sites want desperately to be as Facebook-ish as possible (see: G+ and anyone who found their real name, profile and G+ comments forced on to Youtube.) Not taking as gospel because he's RMS, but at least considering. Most of what he points out are true, and not that controversial.
loup-vaillant 12y ago
> The world isn't black and white and he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies. Yeah, the world is all grey. We all know that. What you should keep in mind however, is that there are shades of grey. And those companies are darker than they need to be.
spinchange 12y ago
To understand why people value Stallman's views so much, it is helpful to have a deeper and more thoughtful understanding about the man's work. See, it isn't about 'the code' nearly as much as it is about the political and ethical values he's spent decades imbuing into code and its licensing. Stallman is fundamentally about upholding freedom for users (basically, citizens in general) in the computer age. As far as I can gather, everything the man does and says in service of this central ideal. His consistency, persistence, and adherence to these principles, coupled with the great technical and advocacy work he's done is valuable and respected by many, even if they disagree or don't fully support his worldview. Since Facebook is simply a multiuser application run on over a network, accessed by computing devices running software, I think he's entirely qualified to talk about it, and when you couple the social and societal implications of Facebook, it's absolutely within his bailiwick as someone who advocates around the political and social implications of software. >The world isn't black and white and he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies No, no. He absolutely understands. He disagrees with it. You do not and find his principles silly. That's fine, but TL;DR just because you think it's complete BS doesn't mean it is.
passepartout 12y ago
> When Facebook makes you use a real name it's not because theres some "Mr. Evil" at the top level plotting to steal your freedom, it's because it leads to a better working social network. You clearly have not thought of the situations where using your real name can be dangerous (see for example activists) or just plain misleading for the purpose of the page (see for example, famous authors etc.). The factors of real life and people needing to hide behind a pseudonym should not be disregarded so absolutely by Facebook. I can see where your comment is coming from, but as you say about Stallman, the world is not all black and white and people should have a right to this grey area even on a social network. Read this: https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/10-reasons-to-leave-facebook/ https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/10-reasons-to-le... Also, The Circle by Dave Eggers is a bit of a frightening example.
naturalrecursin 12y ago
Makes me sad reading comments like these.. You fail to understand so many things. People like Richard provide a much needed balance, and honestly I applaud his efforts.
aros 12y ago
Your entire rant can be summed up in to, "Why doesn't everyone think the same way I do?"

hobs 12y ago

There is literally 100 different links on that page, and you disagree with all of them? Stallman is an ideologue 100%, but if I had to choose Facebook or Stallman, I know which side I am on. (and I dont produce OSS or follow their belief system) Facebook wants a real name because it makes them money more readily when they can identify you more easily and determine your value, not whatever "a better social network" means. Just because Usain Bolt may not have a degree in biology, if he is also saying factual things, that does not make him wrong.

walterbell 12y ago
Real names help Facebook to combine offline purchase activity (Axciom) with online activity.
michaelmior 12y ago
Actually, there's literally 78 different links on that page ;)

kragen 12y ago

People value Stallman’s opinions on these matters so highly because he has a remarkable history of being right about them ten or fifteen years before it becomes clear to everyone else that he was right, and he takes the risk of saying what he sees even when it will offend people. In fact, that’s why he’s famous; he’s certainly a good hacker, but the world has quite a number of good hackers who aren’t famous because they didn’t notice the political and social aspects of what they were doing the way Stallman did. I am not going to bother to rebut your examples in detail, but I will say that I seriously doubt that you were present when Facebook decided on its names policy or that you have much access to information about what effects it has had, and you seem to think companies didn’t exist before 1995.

MCRed 12y ago
Can you give an example? For instance, I was aware of Stallman in the 1980s, read his writings back then, didn't think they were correct, and the future he predicted has not come to be. Yes there are some of us who are that old. Specifically, he said that without the virility of his license, there would be no free/open source software and that all software would be locked down and proprietary. The entire open source movement is a disproof of stallman's position from that period. He has repeatedly claimed that companies won't contribute to open source, and so you have to force them to with the GNU license, and yet history has disproven this one. Given that this is pretty much the central tenant of his ideology, and it has been markedly disproven over the past 30 years, I too wonder why people listen to him.
- yuhong 12y ago
  Not always true, especially back in the early days.
- fit2rule 12y ago
  Stallman predicted the total surveillance state, and warned of the very dire circumstances it put us all in.
  - wanda 12y ago

muyuu 12y ago

I disagree with Stallman on many things but I cannot see anything wrong with that collection of real issues about Facebook, and also with the general message that most people should avoid using Facebook completely or use it exclusively with fake identities and several other provisions.

stinos 12y ago
This. For instance the "Psychological Harm" chapter. That is not even an opinion, rather a fact, so I feel the OP's 'disagree with essentially everything he writes about it' is too strong - you cannot disagree with facts. Actually a lot of what Stallman writes on that page are just facts, and a lot of them also apply to tons of other services on the web. Maybe not all at once though which why he picked FB I guess.. Still in debate with myself though on whether I agree with his strong opinion on it or whether it's even worth having such a strong opinion on it. There are way worse things in the world than FB.
- killerpopiller 12y ago
  and still you talk about him like a pariah. I really don't get the resentiment here about RS. What has he done to you americans? Bursting the bubble of harmless tech? I say americans cause I am sure, if we would make a poll, those who disregard RS points, without even try to proof the opposite, seem to be US. What if Peter Thiel or Paul Graham would have compiled such a list. Cheering waves of agreement I figure.
  - stinos 12y ago
    You've got it wrong. Not sure why you think I'm talking about him like a pariah but that is certainly not my intent. I don't treat him, or anybody else I barely know, in a special way; especially not like a pariah. I don't understand how you think based just on what I wrote that I have any special feelings in any directions about Stallman? In fact I barely read any articles from Stallman nor know much about him. Let alone I'd let some general opinion about him color my opinion on this article. I can assure you what I wrote above was based solely on this article and as objectively as possible. And basically all I said was "true facts, but not sure I agree everybody should just ditch FB based on this". Oh yeah, I'm not even American but European. Although again: I do not think that matters much? Why do you think it does (honest question - you seem to have a strong idea that somehow the US is against him and others aren't. May I ask why?)

rdtsc 12y ago

> Does this make his opinion on Facebook or privacy or freedom any more correct or valid? No. And whose opinions are correct on the topic? Who should we listen to then? Opinions are opionions and we can all evaluate them. Hopefully we can evaluate them objectively regardless who came up with them. > he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies. He doesn't huh. Ok, if it is so obvious, can you list the things he doesn't understand. > it's because it leads to a better working social network. Granted, pretty much every single loss of privacy rule (or law) has been under the guise of "oh but this is good for you actually". > _viable_ company that wants to provide a service that a consumer other than Stallman himself will use will "infringe" on those two idiotic requirements. Really? Ok let's see, I launch my editor, I type in some code, then save it and compile. I just got a service provided to me by the authors of those programs and it might seem idiotic, but I value that service and value that I ran free software and didn't have to send my name to anyone to register that I did that.

michaelmior 12y ago
You said that your editor is free software, meaning that no one made money on you using it. I'm not sure how this refutes the point about a "_viable_ company." (Given that viable necessarily includes making money.)
- domenzain 12y ago
  I suspect rdtsc meant free as in freedom. There are several companies successfully founded and running on free software. An example I saw recently is the French telecommunications provider Free. Much of the software running on their set-top-boxes is licensed under GPL and they provide the source code as required by the licence. They have dealt serious damage to more traditionally minded companies. Invasion of privacy is not a requisite for company viability.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  RedHat is a very _viable_ company that uses and writes free software for example.

nitrogen 12y ago

Does this make his opinion on Facebook or privacy or freedom any more correct or valid? No. Respect for Stallman's opinions derives not from his code, but from his consistency in adhering to his (extreme) principles and correctly seeing how those principles are affected by new developments in technology. He's right about DRM because DRM, not because Emacs. Time will show what else he's right about. Living like Stallman does may not be practical, but that doesn't make him wrong.

crdoconnor 12y ago

>I honestly don't understand why people value Stallman's opinions on these matters so highly. I consider the Snowden revelations a cast iron validation of his so-called paranoia. He was in a small minority back then, and the revelations proved him right. That counts for a lot. >Just like I wouldn't listen to Usain Bolt Who should we listen to then? You?

valvar 12y ago

I think, that if you look a bit closer, you'll be able to discern exactly why Stallman's 'BS' is deemed more acceptable than Watson's 'BS'.

manigandham 12y ago

I'm with you. Seems like FUD here with this post, there are a few decent ideas about privacy but its a social network and used for connecting to people. Maybe they can relax the real name policy some more but I have plenty of friends that don't use their actual real/legal name and never had a problem. There are effective privacy controls in place now and things like being served ads is such a silly issue to complain about... it's a business that needs to make money, how else is that supposed to happen? What is the overall point at the end of this? Basically we should all just be anonymous forever? Facebook is just a decade old, society/culture is still catching up and we really don't need all this doom/gloom every time. And yea, I didn't know who this guy was until this post.

icebraining 12y ago
I have plenty of friends that don't use their actual real/legal name and never had a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement things like being served ads is such a silly issue to complain about... it's a business that needs to make money, how else is that supposed to happen? Hum, charge people? What is the overall point at the end of this? "Don't use Facebook." I thought that was clear.
- manigandham 12y ago
  Fine, the real name policy is a fuzzy issue and not really fit for discussion here. Charging people doesn't work since most people want the convenience and ability to communicate with friends but don't want to pay for it. Not a viable model for Facebook. I'm sure you don't just browse the web and offer to pay every site you visit do you? "Don't use Facebook" is not the point, this is all about fear of privacy in general and just targeted at Facebook but much of it is FUD.
  - aros 12y ago
    People are paying to use Facebook. Are you suggesting that they aren't?
12y ago

detaro 12y ago

His opinions(!) provide an useful reference point, especially since I can trust that they are on one extreme end of the spectrum. I certainly don't agree with all of them, but they make me think about where I make concessions and where I maybe missed that. I rather read an opinion and decide "no, I won't go that far/that is ok for me" instead of being told "all is fine".

gbog 12y ago
Some of RMS opinions are extreme, because they take to an unbearable point some consequence of some ideology. For example refusing to have kids is extreme, most people cannot afford psychologically to not have kids. But RMS opinions about Facebook are not extreme, he doesn't propose to refuse to have friends who are using Facebook, for example. He says just don't use it, it's common sense, just like don't eat fast food is common sense. Common sense is sometimes very uncommon, kudos to those who keep their mind clear in our messy times.
- detaro 12y ago
  "Don't use Facebook" is currently not common sense. Many people are on Facebook and have thought about all these arguments and decided it is worth it to them. (In the meantime, fewer people seem to consider it common sense to be on Facebook, at least it seems to me less and less people are surprised if someone doesn't use it)
  - gbog 12y ago
    Well, I'm reading the Histoire de la Revolution Francaise (Michelet) right now, and something very stunning is that everyone, even the most faithful revolutionnaries, was still "royalist" in 1790. They all had "thought about all these arguments and decided it is worth it to them", because of perceived "common sense". Being a republican was considered extreme even in the left wing of the nascent Assemblee Nationale. And a few month later, it became obvious that monarchy needed to be definitely removed from the Nation, and "common sense" changed to the opposite. So the real common sense (i.e. the "right way to think about it") was to be republican. Another example is abolition of death penalty in France by Mitterand: right now we French/Europeans believe it is very barbarian to still have Justice use this gothic expedient, and rightly so if you ask me. But just before its abolition polls showed most people opposed the abolition. A new, better "common sense" replaced an old habit falsy believed to follow "common sense". So back to Facebook: right now most people do not know it, but it is not unlikely that the retrospective "common sense" of the future will be to avoid Facebook today. And I think a much saner regulation on what can be advertised and sold as food to human being in the US will also be retrospective common sense. And not driving cars is also common sense. The list is quite long... [edited typos and grammar]

ffn 12y ago

Most people don't view Stallman's words as gospel, he's actually kind of a running joke nowadays - a sort of the caricature of the software profession, all neckbeard, tin-foil, and wizard powers. And it is true a lot of Stallman's ideas are sadly unrealistic for a large corporation operating in many highly complex environments. And although nearly every single point on his rant regarding facebook's policies is ridiculous as an argument against using facebook (except the psychology study one), I do absolutely agree with him that folks should, with enough time and introspection, grow out of using facebook personally (professional use is fine). The fact of the matter is facebook gives you the illusion of personal connection and being "always in the know" so you short-circuit that reward-loop in your brain and wind up with an addiction. It's just like drugs, alcohol, video games, or any host of other addictive activities out there for us to waste our lives on. Granted it's fun at first, but after a while, one needs to realize one has become a slave to a rather meaningless habit (checking your feed, updating your status, "liking" shit) that doesn't make you better, richer, or any more intimate with another. Instead, you've sat at your computer for another evening, poor-ifying the circulation in your legs, watching the highlights of other people living their lives, and feeling mildly displeased with yourself yet not enough to ever look away. Instead of facebook, you could've did leg day at the gym and gotten better glutes, hiked to the beach and communed with nature, joined a crossfit class and paid to irreparably hurt yourself, or even got some work done on your hobby project. Facebook is literally wasting you away for the promise of social fulfillment that it can't fulfill. After all when it comes to social connection, facebook is far inferior to actually meeting up for a date, direct call/skype, text/im/email... hell, in a lot of ways Facebook is worse than video games because, when you're playing a video game with friends, at least you're all working together on a common platform (especially if it's one of those Kinect dancing games, nothing brings people closer than watching each other dance awkwardly). Instead, you're on facebook, ruminating over ghosts of people and events that have already passed by you, thinking you're together and connected with all your friends, yet still miserably yourself in front of your computer with nothing to show for it. Also, one can stand to look at only so many pics of receipts from super expensive restaurants by friends who have just recently gone and are gushing over the food like some 12 year old fangirl over a boyish pop idol.

russgray 12y ago

spain 12y ago

>Just like I wouldn't listen to Usain Bolt if he were trying to teach me the biological mechanisms behind doping, I can't see why Stallman's opinion is considered so correct in these matters. That's a false analogy. Stallman has been fighting for our digital rights for ages and has actually been right most of the time. That doesn't make him right all the time, but it does make me more inclined to believe he isn't just spewing nonsense. >IMO his ramblings about personal liberties and freedom being infringed by everything under the sun from Amazon to Google to Facebook are oversimplified and childish. The world isn't black and white and he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies. He has to be that way, because otherwise he would be seen as a hypocrite. It is interesting you think his arguments are "childish" when it seems every day more and more of his arguments are proven true when we find out how another company is using our data for malicious purposes. >When Facebook makes you use a real name it's not because theres some "Mr. Evil" at the top level plotting to steal your freedom, it's because it leads to a better working social network. You are correct in assuming that there is most likely no "Mr. Evil" at the top, however that assumes that ordinary good people aren't capable of collectively and unknowingly becoming "Mr. Evil" through their actions, which our knowledge of psychology would point out is more than likely.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
> has actually been right most of the time That is a matter of opinion, and I think that is where most disagreement stems from. In the HN echo chamber it may seem like everyone agrees he was right, but the rest of the world is not nearly as much in agreement.

blawa 12y ago

Oh well, just what I was fearing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201896 In 2 mins, you're the top comment How about actually disproving his arguments one by one. The world is not black and white is a bad statement to make. How about your pull up your panties and try to make it better, rather than giving useless arguments.

xxxyy 12y ago
This thread shows the big thing that is wrong with today's HN. There is a guy presenting a list of 49 arguments against using a service that is used by one billion people globally. Some of them are pretty good, some more sucky than the others. Yet, the discussion focuses only on the person. It's like the people here could not process the raw facts and derive their own conclusions, and had to fall back to their emotional brains. Certainly not a thing I would expect from HN community. There is a really long way from this attitude to the PG's essay. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- icebraining 12y ago
  Well, I've been around for almost four years now, and I'm not sure HN has ever been different since then. That said, I agree with you, but rms as a way of increasing that response. I think that if he wrote that the Earth orbits the Sun, someone would make a passionate argument for geocentrism.

Create 12y ago

We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world. This should not actually be a complicated inquiry. http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html I honestly don't understand why people value Stallman's opinions on these matters so highly. https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRe... https://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-thought-requires-free-media https://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-... Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself. http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999

vixen99 12y ago

Isn't the piece mostly a series of correct observations (if they are not, no doubt someone will point this out) about Facebook from which one can come to one's own conclusions? I'm not interested in your views on Stallman himself. BTW Usain Bolt and anyone else is welcome to present a cogent argued position on the biology of drug doping if that's what he can do. I fail to see where 'teaching' comes into this discussion.

killerpopiller 12y ago

sorry, but your comment is trolling! You just claim RS isn't "right" and name others who aren't "right" either - in your unfounded oppionion. RS lists examples of FB malpractice, abuse of power and in contrast to your trash talk he is linking proof to each claim.

SeanDav 12y ago

Sounds like you could be a poster child for 1984. In your keenness to try discredit what Stallman is saying you cherry pick a few examples and completely avoid most of the far more serious issues raised here. I can only hope that if the day comes when the authorities come lock up 1 of your family members because of something they did not even post, but started writing then changed their minds and deleted it, you remember your blind support and lack of critical thinking on this occasion.

pikachu_is_cool 12y ago

Of course this would be the most upvoted comment on HN

tripzilch 12y ago

> people here love to bring that up ("what - you DON'T KNOW WHO STALLMAN IS? SHAME? HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE HIM?") I have never seen anyone on HN say that or anything similar. Maybe you were thinking of some other place? For myself, I've been giving Stallman's opinions a lot more weight since the Snowden revelations, since at that point a great many of his ideas instantly switched from "over-idealistic / ridiculous / almost paranoid" to "well what do you know, he actually was right all along!". I am myself quite idealistic and concerned about privacy, free and/or open source software, personal liberties, etc. I just used to think Stallman was taking it a bit too far to the crazy side. Then Snowden happened and it turns out he was right about a lot of the things that I really thought went a bit too far "out there". Not all of the things, mind you, but enough of them to make me pause and give thought to his opinions, and try to take them seriously. And it's probably my own bias, but on HN as well, it seems to me that his name and ideas have been discussed quite a bit more often after Snowden, than before.

fit2rule 12y ago

What purpose does it serve to denigrate Stallman for his efforts?

facepalm 12y ago

I don't understand why your comment is voted up so much because you only seem to provide an opinion ("I don't understand...") and take 10 paragraphs for it.

notum 12y ago
Flawed ranking algorithm. It's the replies that vote him up.
- facepalm 12y ago
  Oh, didn't know that replies also count as votes - are you sure?
  - notum 12y ago
    Nope! But I suspect reply owners, even if in disagreement, hit the upvote button to buy more eyeballs. I may or may have not upvoted your comment.

vacri 12y ago

For a similar example, see: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-jam.. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-jam.... Watson claiming he can't get work in biology because of his racist views is nothing like Stallman, whose primary job is the speaking circuit talking about his views. You're saying that the thing that people voluntarily pay Stallman to do is the thing that he knows nothing about and should be shunned for.

andmarios 12y ago

Indeed, you don't know who Stallman is. His most important work isn't the software but the Free Software movement, the GPL license and the Free Software Foundation. Sure, we all like emacs and gcc but these were just Stallman putting his money where his mouth is. Stallman made the first commits to these and many more programs but it was the thousands of programmers who accepted his ideas and made them what they are today. Of course you are free to criticize him, but portraying him like Usain Bolt trying to teach the biological mechanisms behind doping shows a certain degree of ignorance.

evook 12y ago

> because any _viable_ company that wants to provide a service that a consumer other than Stallman himself will use will "infringe" on those two idiotic requirements. I work for a data center operator and ISP and our customer database is air gapped. We're in the business for 18 years now.

krapp 12y ago

Richard Stallman does have a cult of personality around him who seem willing to defend his prescience and infallibility to the detriment of critical thinking and common sense. However, while I think he is off base on a couple of points here (the "Psychological Harm" argument, in particular, seems like a cricitism of the vanity of youth and gamification, the latter of which is worth criticizing,) one doesn't need to be paranoid to see that much of what he mentions is at least worth considering. And he doesn't mention much, it's basically a list of links about Facebook's business practices, and many of the issues he presents apply to social media in general since so many sites want desperately to be as Facebook-ish as possible (see: G+ and anyone who found their real name, profile and G+ comments forced on to Youtube.) Not taking as gospel because he's RMS, but at least considering. Most of what he points out are true, and not that controversial.

loup-vaillant 12y ago

> The world isn't black and white and he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies. Yeah, the world is all grey. We all know that. What you should keep in mind however, is that there are shades of grey. And those companies are darker than they need to be.

spinchange 12y ago

To understand why people value Stallman's views so much, it is helpful to have a deeper and more thoughtful understanding about the man's work. See, it isn't about 'the code' nearly as much as it is about the political and ethical values he's spent decades imbuing into code and its licensing. Stallman is fundamentally about upholding freedom for users (basically, citizens in general) in the computer age. As far as I can gather, everything the man does and says in service of this central ideal. His consistency, persistence, and adherence to these principles, coupled with the great technical and advocacy work he's done is valuable and respected by many, even if they disagree or don't fully support his worldview. Since Facebook is simply a multiuser application run on over a network, accessed by computing devices running software, I think he's entirely qualified to talk about it, and when you couple the social and societal implications of Facebook, it's absolutely within his bailiwick as someone who advocates around the political and social implications of software. >The world isn't black and white and he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies No, no. He absolutely understands. He disagrees with it. You do not and find his principles silly. That's fine, but TL;DR just because you think it's complete BS doesn't mean it is.

passepartout 12y ago

> When Facebook makes you use a real name it's not because theres some "Mr. Evil" at the top level plotting to steal your freedom, it's because it leads to a better working social network. You clearly have not thought of the situations where using your real name can be dangerous (see for example activists) or just plain misleading for the purpose of the page (see for example, famous authors etc.). The factors of real life and people needing to hide behind a pseudonym should not be disregarded so absolutely by Facebook. I can see where your comment is coming from, but as you say about Stallman, the world is not all black and white and people should have a right to this grey area even on a social network. Read this: https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/10-reasons-to-leave-facebook/ https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/10-reasons-to-le... Also, The Circle by Dave Eggers is a bit of a frightening example.

naturalrecursin 12y ago

Makes me sad reading comments like these.. You fail to understand so many things. People like Richard provide a much needed balance, and honestly I applaud his efforts.

aros 12y ago

Your entire rant can be summed up in to, "Why doesn't everyone think the same way I do?"