
Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook - phantom_oracle
https://stallman.org/facebook.html
======
mwfunk
If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use
to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're
saying is credible.

Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go
through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the
Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they
instead say "Democrap" or "Dumbocrat" or "Dumbocrap". That does not make me
think they are clever wordsmiths; rather, that makes me think that they think
I'm an idiot and that they think they can actually manipulate me with such
silliness. It also makes me think they arrived at their own philosophy not by
trying to understand opposing views, but by inventing their own strawmen for
whatever tribe they imagine they are opposed to. It makes me think they are
driven by tribalism rather than ideas.

Example 2: well, here, RMS' insistence on using the word "useds" rather than
"users" when referring to people who are on Facebook. Yeah, I get it. Ha ha
ha. It doesn't make me think you're clever, it makes me think you literally do
not possess the capacity to reason about anything without invoking strawmen.
It calls into question every single observation you are making. It makes it
sound like you don't respect the people you are supposedly trying to convince,
and are instead just enjoying preaching to your choir.

It's not like an isolated incident, it is literally his primary rhetorical
device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades. Even the
appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific
and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It's so frustrating
because he does have some (some) very insightful and constructive ideas about
a lot of things, and could be such a positive contributor to the world, but
it's like he wants to alienate his non-choir audience right out of the gate.
It's like he's terrified of actually engaging with people that are not already
100% (not 99.9%, he demands 100%) on his side. He is right about some (some)
things, but so many, many people will never know it because he wants to shoot
himself in the foot as soon as possible.

~~~
beagle3
I do not use "democrap" or "republicant", as they do not promote the
discussion or understanding in any way.

However, I did adopt Stallman's "Copy Restriction" (instead of "Copy
Protection") and "Digital Restriction Management" (instead of "Digital Right
Management") - because they are a much better description of what the concept
actually is for 99% of the people.

I started doing this after I told someone that I will not buy a Depeche Mode
CD I wanted and was holding in my hand in the store, because it has copy
protection; they looked at me completely puzzled, asking "Why wouldn't you
want your copy to be protected?", and a little more inquiry revealed that they
believed it was a somehow more robust (by virtue of being "protected") than
non-copy protected CDs.

Language is a very potent medium of control. You are, indeed, used by facebook
when you interact with it, and introducing it into the language is a way to
bring it to the surface. He's not using "useds" to be clever. He's bringing it
to the surface. It might look stupid to you, but I assure you that you are not
immune to this kind of bias (and neither am I). I know that's why he does
that, because I've heard him personally explain that when attending one of his
talks.

In fact, if you look at the works of Kahenman & Tversky, you see that
equivalent questions worded differently get opposite responses from people who
we expect to know better (e.g. doctors, pilots, ...).

Stallman is basically trying to counter the (essentially unlimited) bias that
the media has against what he believes, and I don't know of any tool that does
that better than the rhetorical device(s) he is using.

~~~
nsgi
Still don't understand the problem with the terms in your second paragraph.
Copy protection protects CDs from being copied. Digital rights management
manages the rights of the IP owner. These are just as valid.

Then you have claiming Win32 is a subliminal message about winning rather than
an abbreviation for Windows...

~~~
kartickv
Copy protection doesn't protect the customer, nor does digital rights
management help manage their rights. They are not benefits for the customer,
only negatives.

When my bank charges me a fee, they call it a fee, not a bonus, though it's
the latter from their point of view.

~~~
jolux
It does protect the customer though, at the very least it means their money
was well spent and other people can't violate that social contract by taking
what they want for free.

~~~
beagle3
Personally, I don't feel any social contract is violated if someone else gets
for free music that I paid money for.

Furthermore, it seems neither do many of the artists - most of them make their
music available for free through e.g. YouTube.

And even if such a social contract existed, I suspect I would feel more harmed
by the inability to format-shift the music I bought, than by someone else
listening to the music without paying.

It is rare for two passengers on an airplane to pay the same rate even for the
same seat and service class. Does this violate any social contract in your
opinion? Obviously, the money was not wall spent by one of them.

~~~
jolux
Well no it doesn't, but that's generally because they had rewards with the
airline or bought it in a deal somewhere. Both are legal ways to reduce the
money you pay for things. As is streaming music these days. And I should
emphasize I'm not against being able to crack DRM and I think it would be
really bad to make uncrackable DRM. In my opinion DRM is not supposed to stop
the people who would crack it anyways, it's the people who would try it just
for the hell of it if it were easy. It's like why you put a lock on your
house: it's not because it makes it impenetrable to burglars, it's because it
keeps out 99% of the assholes who would just walk in if there was no door.

~~~
beagle3
I still fail to see how I am better served because someone else cannot copy
some music without a rights holder permission.

------
simbalion
Stallman is my hero.

All social media is terrible, and all of it is impossible to profit from, and
I bet all of it will eventually fail. Facebook doesn't make any money from
social media, they make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their
social media platform.

Anyone who is interested in social blogging should have their own website
(wordpress.com is free) with RSS support so people who like what you write can
follow your posts. RSS is not controlled by any corporation. That is the
internet way of doing social media.

this is slightly off-topic but I read Zuckerberg's accounts got hacked because
he used 'dadada' as a password on multiple services. People have called him a
genius, he does not appear to be that exactly.

~~~
morgante
> Facebook doesn't make any money from social media, they make money from side
> businesses that are tacked onto their social media platform.

Newspapers never made money, they just made money from side businesses that
were tacked onto their social media platform.

TV shows don't make money, they just make money from side businesses that are
tacked onto their shows.

Just because you don't _like_ a business model doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Advertising has been a successful business model for literally centuries.

~~~
pdonis
_> Newspapers never made money_

Sure they did; they sold subscriptions, and if you didn't have a subscription
and wanted a copy, you bought one.

 _> TV shows don't make money_

Sure they do; practically nobody gets broadcast TV any more, it's all paid
cable or paid satellite or something of that sort. Granted that's a very
indirect way of paying for individual shows, but now you can even do that
directly with, for example, Netflix.

 _> Advertising has been a successful business model for literally centuries._

I agree that advertising has been around for many centuries, but it hasn't
been a business model for most of that time; it's been a cost of doing
business. According to Wikipedia[1], the first newspaper to have paid
advertising was in 1836. And the first businesses to make money solely from
advertising revenue (which is what "advertising as a successful business
model" means to me) are much more recent than that.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_advertising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_advertising)

~~~
morgante
Just because advertising isn't their only revenue source doesn't mean that it
wasn't intrinsic to maintaining the profitability and viability of numerous
media organizations.

> And the first businesses to make money solely from advertising revenue

Strictly speaking, that means Facebook is _also_ not using an advertising
business model.

------
chflags
I'll bet Zuckerberg and countless Facebook employees have used software
written by Stallman.

At the risk of being wrong, I'd even go so far as to say they _need_ this
software.

But does Stallman ever need to use software written by Zuckerberg or Facebook
employees?

Personalities and errors in judgment aside, give respect and credit where it
is due.

I have never needed Facebook's software. And I doubt I ever will.

From a purely utilitarian viewpoint, my gratitude goes to Stallman and the
people who brought us the internet. I'm not sure what I could thank Facebook
for.

If Zuckerberg had failed to be in the right place at the right time, there
would always be a substitute.

But if there was no Stallman back in the 70's and 80's, would we still have
gcc, gdb and so much free, open source software?

~~~
umanwizard
Nobody needs GNU software; they can use FreeBSD which is just as good. They
can also use clang and lldb instead of gcc and gdb.

You can debate about whether those would have existed in their present form
without the leadership of the FSF, but then you'd be making a different
argument.

By the way, I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that Stallman brought us
the Internet but I can't see how that could possibly be true.

~~~
chflags
"...I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that Stallman brought us the
Internet..."

No. The opposite. I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that besides free
open source software, improvements in the network allow companies like
Facebook to grow as big as they are.

Before clang, FreeBSD used gcc. I'm actually not a GNU/Linux user; I wish BSD
did not have to use gcc, but for as long as I've been a user, release
engineering has always used gcc. I would personally prefer to use something
like pcc as opposed to clang.

Today, lots of companies use GNU software, when they could just as easily use
BSD. And many BSD users still need gcc to compile their OS. Not how I expected
things to turn out but attacking Stallman makes little sense at this point.

Instead, maybe we should be thanking him.

Companies like Facebook offer very little while taking all our personal
information for their commercial use, while open source projects like BSD and
GNU continue to offer a great deal, without requiring so much as an account or
password, much less tracking our every move.

------
bikamonki
I was a used a few months ago until I just quit. I enjoy trail running and
time-permitting I try to do 5-7 races per year. This year I totally missed 2
races b/c I was not in the loop anymore. Organizers don't even have a website
or newsletter anymore, just a FB page. Then I realized this is happening to
businesses as well. They seem to ignore the fact that they are giving FB full
control over its brand/audience.

Anyway, Stallman is right, again.

~~~
dublinben
>Organizers don't even have a website or newsletter anymore, just a FB page

This will only get worse, as long as we let it. If the members of a community
refuse to participate in their Facebook "group" or "event" page, then they
will have to publish that information somewhere else.

------
dlnovell
Recently my girlfriend discovered the depth of the program FB started to
listen to the microphone, even if the app isn't on. She never installed the FB
app on her new phone. Multiple times in the last month, some VERY specific
topic of conversation IRL has shown up as an ad in her FB stream. Most
recently, a coworker told her about a "Custom Martin" guitar he had just
bought. Later that day there was an ad for a custom Martin guitar. She's never
searched for that, liked anything related, there's absolutely no other
reasonable explanation, and facebook has made it clear they were going to
start listening. They were serious. We later discovered that new Samsung
phones have FB installed as a "system app" that can't be uninstalled, and that
app has permission to turn on the microphone whenever, without permission. Her
phone listens to everything she says all day. Anyone with the FB app (whether
they choose to install it or not in the case of Samsungs) is being listened to
at all times. To me, this is worse than every single thing on RMS's list. It's
kinda terrifying.

~~~
dlnovell
Oh, and also - this morning FB suggested I may know the Lyft driver from last
night. I wasn't even the one who ordered the Lyft, I just rode in it. I don't
have the FB app installed on my phone. WTF?

~~~
sghi
For that, I was under the assumption that the 'People you may know' on
facebook was also who had been looking at you on Facebook, so the driver might
have been looking you up.

~~~
dlnovell
How would he look me up? He didn't know my name. Can lyft drivers see the full
name of the people who they pick up, or just the first name? If they can see
the full name, then MAYBE he looked up my friend, then looked at his friends
list and found me. I find that extremely unlikely. I've also seen a lot of
very, very strange "you may know" suggestions for people that I've only met in
passing, and again without full names.

~~~
codedokode
If your and your driver's phone have sent GPS coordinates to facebook it is
pretty easy to link you together.

Or you can be linked by the recorded sound.

~~~
simplify
He said he didn't have the FB app installed on his phone, though.

------
fwr
I couldn't help but cringe every time the word "used" was used for "user"
after the first occurence.

~~~
vonklaus
He's not wrong.

edit: Per emsy's suggestion: I mean that he is just articulating that _if
something is free, you are the product_ , except he(stallman) articulates it
by changing the noun to reflect his viewpoint.

also, I just deleted facebook.

~~~
weinzierl
If you are referring to the Lebowsky quote:

I used to believe that to be true about Stallman too. Now I believe he is just
right, what makes him so obnoxious is just that his truths are so
inconvenient.

~~~
vonklaus
negative, if I were to refer to the Big Lebowsky quote (and not care about HN
guidelines) I would've posted something like:

He's not wrong, but the parent commenter is an asshole.

But that would of course not be in the spirit of HN and I am sure that they
must realize whether they cringe or not RMS is still going to have a pretty
consistent view of the matter.

edit: It actually is annoying how correct he is. FB was pretty nice, but I
deactivated my account because I disagree with FB and this reminded me to have
the conviction to actually vote. I voted against LinkedIn, Bank of AMerica,
Facebook, some google services and Instagram so far this year. I voted for
Gitlabs, Digital Ocean, Simple Bank and the Apple ecosystem.

------
smegel
As someone who has never used Facebook, I often feel like I am talking to
members of some sinister cult when I meet someone who asks me about Facebook
and I say I don't use it. The surprise and weird eyes they give me really
unnerves me, it's not just a website to some people, it has become a integral
part of their life and has seeped into their mind.

It has gotten to the point that I am deliberately rude about it, feigning
complete ignorance and saying things like "what's that, one of those stupid
social networks?" or "why would anyone want to use that?" \-- in the hope I
momentarily shock them out of their brainwashed state into a moment of clarity
where they realize not everyone is a member of this virtual cult.

~~~
askafriend
Look, people are surprised because Facebook has become an integral way to
communicate with someone whether it be via chat with messenger or as a
broadcast message via a newsfeed post.

Internalize this: Facebook has become as integral to communication as having a
cell phone was in the last decade. If you met someone who didn't have a cell
phone today (whether it be a smartphone or otherwise), wouldn't you be
surprised? That's the same surprise people are giving you.

That's their perspective and it's not unreasonable.

~~~
smegel
Cell phones didn't introduce a whole new human activity. At the end of the
day, you were still just having a phone conversation with someone - it was
just easier and more convenient way to do something people were already doing.

Facebook is a whole new activity that never really existed before, it's much
more than just "communication". It seems more about following other peoples
lives in a rather obsessive and voyeuristic way (and broadcasting your own),
and has this "club" or "cult" feeling about it.

If someone told me they didn't have a cellphone, yes I would be surprised, but
more like "how do you get by?" rather than "who is this suspicious outsider?".

~~~
baby
> Cell phones didn't introduce a whole new human activity.

Wherever you are, if you are not at home, look around you and tell me that
cellphones didn't introduce a whole new human activity.

------
newscracker
This is a great list of links that I can refer to whenever I need to tell
someone how bad Facebook as a company really is and what it does. Every time I
see an article like this, I feel highly disappointed that there is still no
alternative platform to move people into (at least easily).

> Facebook: the most congenitally dishonest company in America.

I've always believed this to be the case for a long time, except that I had
"world" in mind instead of a specific country. I don't like Google tracking
users either (and avoid/reduce/change how I use it), but Facebook has been at
an altogether diferent "super evil" level all along and continues to be so.
The "authentic name" policy is one of the worst things about Facebook as a
platform and as a company, and it limits speaking out freely for many people
(although there are many others who don't care).

I try to limit the damage I'm causing (since I cannot avoid using FB for a few
different reasons) by not putting personal information on it (except
unavoidable ones like events I create), not using the FB mobile app (and
instead using a browser where I have more control), and having diferent user
profiles for different purposes (though Facebook doesn't "like" this).

------
thex10
One point from the article I found most interesting:

> Pages that contain Facebook "like" buttons enable Facebook to track visitors
> to those pages. Facebook tracks Internet users that see "like" buttons, even
> users who never visited facebook.com and never click on those buttons.

> The ACLU has a way of enabling users to click a Facebook "like" button,
> which avoids this problem. Its pages have a link called "like us on
> Facebook" that leads to a Facebook page where it is possible to push a
> "like" button for the ACLU. But if you don't follow that link, Facebook gets
> no information about your visit to the ACLU page.

I'd love to learn more about these sorts of strategies for subverting the
Facebook omniscience.

~~~
nikcub
The term for them is two-click like buttons, or privacy friendly like buttons.
There are a number of implementations[0][1][2]

Note that Facebook doesn't like having the loading or function of their like
button altered (they want the third-party page loads for targetting)[3]

Note also that some of the share button widgets that aggregate the different
social networks into one widget (like AddThis and ShareThis) pitch themselves
are more privacy friendly but they are much worse - they will track and target
you and sell your data to every network they can.

They also use (or used) evercookie techniques such as canvas fingerprinting or
cache-based fingerprinting for persistent and privacy-setting resistant
tracking[4].

[0] [https://github.com/JonathanMH/privacy-friendly-
facebook](https://github.com/JonathanMH/privacy-friendly-facebook)

[1] [http://www.h-online.com/features/Two-clicks-for-more-
privacy...](http://www.h-online.com/features/Two-clicks-for-more-
privacy-1783256.html)

[2]
[https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy](https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy)

[3]
[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FFacebook-
beschwert-sich-ueber-datenschutzfreundlichen-2-Klick-Button-1335658.html)

[4] [https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/libraries-
are-...](https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/libraries-are-giving-
away-user-privacy.html)

------
nikcub
If you want to run Facebook but want to be privacy conscious (any more
suggestions? - this is what I do):

1\. Create a separate browser profile for accessing Facebook

2\. Run uBlock Origin

3\. Don't install the mobile apps - use the mobile web interface

4\. Turn your Facebook privacy settings up to 11 (the new max privacy settings
are actually good/reasonable) - you can set it up so that you can't be found
in search[0], can't be tagged in unwanted posts[4][5]

5\. The cookie used to track you via the like buttons is called datr and is
set on *.facebook.com if you want to block it in privoxy / squid etc.

6\. If you access Facebook using the onion website[1] over Tor[2] they won't
know your location or network info

7\. Don't like anything and fill in as little information as possible

8\. Don't add people you don't know

9\. Review apps that have permission to access your profile and info
regularly[3]

[0]
[https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=privacy&section=search...](https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=privacy&section=search&view)

[1] [https://facebookcorewwwi.onion](https://facebookcorewwwi.onion)

[2]
[https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en](https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en)

[3]
[https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications](https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications)

[4]
[https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=expan...](https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=expansion&view)

[5]
[https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=sugge...](https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=timeline&section=suggestions&view)

~~~
andrei_says_
Don't add people you know In real life and don't let people you know friend
you.

~~~
nikcub
I have two family members and one friend who are school teachers.

All use fake names[0] on Facebook because they don't want to be harrassed by
parents or students online. Apparently, it is very common (both the harassment
and teachers using aliases)

[0] Usually a real first name with an altered/shortened surname

~~~
curiousgal
Well in fairness Facebook doesn't allow for much harassment. Messages from
people outside your friendlist get routed to an other inbox and you can stop
people from adding you or even finding you via searches, Not to mention
blocking. So yeah, in the extent of stating safe from harassment using a
pseudoname is overboard.

~~~
nikcub
It's not just harrasement in that sense, but also that you don't want to be
bothered. With some parents, if they find you have a Facebook profile, they'll
expect to be added. Once you are added, they'll expect you respond to private
messages, etc.

I've heard some horror stories about helicopter parents and how they deal with
teachers online

~~~
kagamine
When my children started nursery and later school the parents were told by the
staff that they will not friend you, if the FB account is in their name then
consider it a private/personal account. If you want to contact the school look
for fooSchool on facebook or similar.

Once it has been made clear at the start of the year then staff need only
reiterate if a parent forgets.

------
gjkood
I wonder if even highly computer literate users can grasp the scale of overt
and covert information leakage that takes place when we connect a machine to
an always on internet connection.

Now with the advent of IoT and other always listening voice activated services
the scale of this leakage is only growing bigger.

The typical computer or phone user is ready and willing to give up their
privacy to get a small discount or save a few bucks here and there.

I wonder how many of Comcast's customers are aware that Comcast is running
public Wifi services through their cable modems in their homes.

In the wake of Snowden's revelations, it makes sense that we pay heed to
Stallman's seemingly paranoid utterings.

Facebook is just one among many information gatherers that we are feeding
daily either willingly or unwittingly.

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” ― Joseph
Heller, Catch-22

~~~
Sylos
> I wonder if even highly computer literate users can grasp the scale of overt
> and covert information leakage that takes place when we connect a machine to
> an always on internet connection.

Nah, not a chance. I mean, maybe if you're running a lightweight Linux distro
and don't ever open a browser, then you might be able to grasp it, but what
your average consumer device and your average webpages send out, should be
well beyond what can be understood by any single human.

That is not least also caused by the fact that at this point, data does not
have an expiration date. For all we know, someone might be able to get data
about your sleeping schedule in 500 years, still, or I don't know, jail your
great-grandson when Hitler then finally does make a return, because you once
talked to a Jewish girl.

------
manu-chroma
Can any one point out when was this article written ? He has some really valid
points in there.

~~~
shazow
Looking at the links mentioned in the article, they span from 2011 to 2016 as
is evident from the URLs. Seems it's being updated regularly.

~~~
lunula
I've seen it over the years and every time it seems to have grown twice as
long.

------
george_ciobanu
Brexit for Facebook - really? Is that all we learned from this recent
referendum?

Yes, it is weird to have this much personal information about so many people
in the world in the hands of a corporation. But Facebook serves a real need -
to connect. And they do it well. The problem is real - we need to have a non-
commercial entity run this. But if Facebook dies tomorrow another company will
take its place. How do we solve the need while addressing these issues? Should
the government take it over? Which one? Should it become a non-profit? How
should it be run? The problem is real but the solution is not to shut it down,
but to work together to find the best way to serve all users. So Facebook is
now a political issue - an international one. For all the bad things that came
out of Facebook, there is also a lot of good - some would argue more. Let's
address it by working together instead of shutting off.

~~~
daveguy
> How do we solve the need while addressing these issues?

I always hoped that something like diaspora[0] would take off. With blockchain
technologies and ipfs style distributed filesystems it might be possible
without any central organization.

[0][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_\(social_network\))

~~~
saynsedit
There's also GNU social. It's a decentralized (a la email/XMPP) social
network. Distributed technology is not there yet but decentralized gets us
pretty far.

------
projektir
One thing worth noting is that, unfortunately, lacking a Facebook account
doesn't truly shield you from it... people can still mention you, tag you in
pictures, etc.

~~~
beagle3
They can and will, but that's the least of your worries about Facebook.

Every page that has a "like us on facebook" or "share this on facebook" \-
estimates are 50% of the web pages - reports your web surfing habits to
Facebook. Whether or not you have a facebook account.

uBlock Origin, AdBlockPlus, Disconnect, Ghostery, etc. are your friends.

------
stephenr
As someone else has said, in theory I am in agreement with Stallman on this,
but his obsession with using weird language and trying to coin alt-phrases in
every fucking sentence makes me disagree with how he's trying to make his
point.

The same goes for terms like Copy protection, DRM, etc.

Stallman is publishing his views with an obviously adult audience in mind, but
the way he explains things is as if he were explaining it to children.

If you're talking an adult audience, it's a reasonable expectation that they
would understand (once told) the concept that the "rights" in DRM mean the
rights of the creator/producer, rather than the rights of the listener/viewer,
or that "copy protection" is a method to prevent the creation of copied works.

This whole thing honestly sounds like his approach to software licenses as
well. Stallman and his followers have claimed that when software is released
under a less restrictive license, it's a terrible loss, because anyone else
can then come along and use that software for whatever they want, including
for-profit products that include their own improvements that are not released
as open source.

Having that view point is a personal choice, and I don't have any issue with
you for it, but more often than not any discussed of a permissive vs copyleft
licenses ends up in claims that choosing MIT/BSD/etc is "wrong". And suddenly
the picture gets clearer:

Stallman's ideas are not just his ideas, they're basically his religion, and
if you don't join his religion (i.e. subscribe to his ideas, you're wrong,
because you couldn't possibly be as smart as he is. We are but mindless
children who cannot possibly have made an informed, educated decision about
something, if our opinion on something differs from his.

------
codedokode
Facebook is also a "legal" spammer and it spams a lot. Had once registered
with a fake account just to test some application and since then every day or
so facebook sends me messages like "You might know these people" with some
random guys or "You have received a notification". I haven't visited facebook
maybe for a year but is still sends me messages daily.

Luckily I used a separate email account for registration so I just redirected
all emails from facebook to a spam folder.

------
Sami_Lehtinen
How about using GNU Social instead of Facebook.
[https://gnu.io/social/](https://gnu.io/social/)

~~~
lockes5hadow
I'd love to, but after I click the link, I get another link to "try" it.
Clicking this link still gives me no joy, as now I need to find a server or
something? Ok, lets see if there is one for my country, USA. Nothing on the
popular list. Guess I should try the complete list. Oh look, no way to search.
No suggestions on what I should be doing.

Whatever, I could spend my time and energy figuring the rest of it out, but
there is no way I am going to convince my girlfriend this is a good idea.

~~~
vacri
This is why Slack is taking the world by storm - the chat window isn't all
that good (in my opinion), but the onboarding process is buttery-smooth and
completely frictionless.

------
gourou
EU legislation will push them to stop doing some of this (privacy section).
Hopefully, the US will follow.

[http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/eu-privacy-rules-may-hit-
inte...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/eu-privacy-rules-may-hit-internet-
giants-hard.html)

------
kuharich
Previous discussions:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6816072](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6816072)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201644](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9201644)

------
vonklaus
I turned off ublock so that I could load the stylesheet. Nope, stallman's site
just looks like that. It's actually refreshing, just a radical departure from
the status quo. Although, it is RMS so should've expected that...

~~~
babuskov
If only the paragraph width was set to something reasonable (say, 33em) it
would be great.

~~~
drdaeman
At first, I thought "hmm, the site (or, actually, its visitors) would probably
benefit from some piece of CSS that just does a bit of nicer-looking
typography - to be easier for the readers' eyes."

But then I had also thought "nope, I suspect I'm misdirecting my wishes - it's
the browsers (and their users) that should benefit from a default stylesheet
that looks better than the current not-so-nice defaults."

~~~
majewsky
> it's the browsers (and their users) that should benefit from a default
> stylesheet that looks better than the current not-so-nice defaults.

I'm sure browser vendors agree, but it would break too many sites. It's the
old backwards-compatibility game.

------
_yosefk
"Putting the photo of someone on Facebook (or Instagram) contributes to
surveillance of that person. Please don't post any photos there that include
me, and I suggest you avoid posting photos of anyone else too."

I wish Facebook (and G+ etc.) users cared, I really do. I also wish they
didn't share their contacts with Facebook (and WhatsApp, LinkedIn, etc.) Of
course nobody cares, so you can't really opt out of these social networks.

------
rajanchandi
I recently quit Facebook and felt like I'm free(with my time). It is
interesting to note that after you order "deletion" your account will remain
for 14 days and you could come back. It is like 2 weeks notice period (before
quitting the job) which is a standard in united states. I'd still keep using
WhatsApp as long as it stays utilitarian and lets me communicate with my
people.

------
jmarinez
In total agreement with RMS on this.

------
oneplane
There really is no point in using Facebook, other than get the stuff other
people post on it because they are there. You don't use facebook because your
friends aren't there and you don't use facebook because you 'like' it. It's
the same with messaging systems, phones, civilization in general: you do it
because enough people in your life are there and only there. If all the people
I ever wanted to communicate with were outside the city on a farm or something
like that, I'd move there. Or if they only use email and IRC, then I'd only
need those. But the fact is that many groups are only adressable on one
platform, some only on facebook, others only on whatsapp, and others only on
IRC. Sure, there is overlap, but that doesn't mean dropping 30% of the people
you know from digital communications, just because they use some evilCorp
software doesn't work. Migrations do happen from time to time, for example,
there used to be MySpace, and in The Netherlands, there was Hyves, and before
those, there was MSN and email. All of them, except for email just slowly
died, or the critical mass of people you want to communicate with are no
longer there. For me, the 'critial mass' of people on Twitter, Instagram,
SnapChat etc is never reached. So far, there are maybe 5 or 6 people that are
on those systems that I might be remotely interested in, but it's not enough
to actually act on. And just like Facebook, those are just 'as bad' (some are
Facebook-owned of course). I've also had people move away from WhatsApp to
Telegram, and from Telegram to some other messaging system. Still, it's no
critical mass on Telegram for me to use it, just like Skype. Doesn't matter if
they are 'good' or 'evil'.

So while having an opinion or knowing some service or knowing some company is
evil, isolating yourself from the rest of the world (or just the friends and
their preferred communications) isn't going to work, at least not for me.
Making sure you don't put information there that you don't want to be there is
about as good as it gets.

------
alkonaut
I'd give anything to switch social network but I'm not keen on switching to
one where my friends aren't. So no matter how much I despise Facebook, today I
can't really be without it. I'd literally miss every single social event
because it has come to the point where no one even imagines that someone
wouldn't use FB.

I wish someone would just set up a free/open network by just stealing users
social graph from Facebook outright and having people "migrate" to the new one
(and also presenting FB data in the new apps feed during a transition period).

This is of course an attack on everything that Facebook is, so naturally this
new social network would have to be decentralized and the creators would have
to be pretty low key.

------
advertising
Who here has frequently used facebook and then got off the platform? What's
been the hardest part without it? Was it hard? Do you feel disconnected or has
communication actually been affected with the people who matter to you?

~~~
jogjayr
Facebook quitter here. 6 years since I got rid of my account.

It wasn't hard at all. I keep in touch with the people that matter to me using
email, phone calls, text, IM and Whatsapp (and then they went and got
themselves acquired...)

It's arguable my social life might have been even better had I never left
(missed invitations, lacking fodder for small talk with mutual acquaintances
etc) but I clawed time back in my day for other things. I also don't have to
worry about things like FOMO, social media generated envy, pointless social
oneupmanship and the like. YMMV

------
wckronholm
Everything else aside, the first Guardian article linked to under
"Miscellaneous" [1] suggests that it will take more than a well reasoned
argument to get people to leave facebook.

[1]
([https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/05/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/05/facebook-
deliberately-breaking-android-apps))

------
carapace
Facebook is one of the single most creepy things here in the future. I think
if you time-travelled back to, say, the '50's and tried to explain FB to
people they would just not believe you. They would think that aliens had
brain-washed people before they'd believe that millions of people just
blithely hand their personal lives to a third-party.

------
bbcbasic
Has anyone posted this link on Facebook yet? :-)

------
raverbashing
As much as I dislike Fb (though I am a user and their tracking is disabled
through Ublock), Stallman articles are usually "Old man yells at cloud" thing)

So yes, I do use Fb, I do use closed source software and I have better things
than to care about my "alleged" freedom. I get more value from those than they
get from me, I assure you.

~~~
lunula
I think his point is that you may feel this way now, but in the long term it
will become apparent that the balance is not in your favor. If it is in your
favor, then all the closed source systems and social networks have
miscalculated and are in fact operating at a consistent loss. I am sure you
are a smart person, but it doesn't seem likely that everyone has made a
mistake in doing business with you and your data.

He is saying that it may seem like a good deal now, but it is likely to become
apparent in the future that it hasn't been. It isn't like we need a platform
like Facebook to communicate on the internet, and we could avoid all the
problems that communicating through them by using existing peer to peer
approaches for online communication.

I've run into RMS's page on this several times and it seems to double in
length each time. This is to say that maybe things aren't getting better and
the future in which even you might accept that it isn't a good thing to give
ourselves to these platforms is quickly approaching.

~~~
raverbashing
You're right that, in general, their business model is providing them a
return.

> but in the long term it will become apparent that the balance is not in your
> favor. If it is in your favor

It is in my favor because I limit what I put there, and block tracking and
ads. Yes, it might change in the future, but I suppose traffic would have
moved to other places as well (hopefully not owned by fb - but all companies
make a mistake sooner or later)

------
force_reboot
Every user's looking for something. Some of them want to use Facebook. Some of
them want to be used by Facebook.

------
Tharkun
A lot of my friends use FB messages/chat instead of e-mail. If i want to stay
in touch with them, FB is the only way.

This used to be OKish, when FB did XMPP and i could use any client. That's
since been shut down, and the mobile website no longer lets you read
messages...

~~~
provemewrong
I'm also in the same position. Currently using the Swipe application for
Android, which is a wrapper around Facebook mobile with a hack to enable
messaging. It works for now, but it's pretty much an uphill battle and I'm
worried about the future.

------
saynsedit
I don't agree with this post because its tone threatens my ego. There is hope
for humanity.

------
seattle_spring
Wow, the only thing missing to complete Stallman's persona is a fedora and a
Guy Fawkes mask.

------
GmeSalazar
Not directly related, but Stallman should be supporting/using LetsEncrypt
instead of COMODO...

~~~
GmeSalazar
By the way, I inquired him on this a few months back and the answer was: "I
don't know enough certificates to think about the question. I leave that issue
to others." and then, after I tried to explain a bit about it and the licenses
in use, "I don't know enough about certificates to take any position about
them."

------
dudusmaximus
Facebook should create a "People Control 101" course for aspiring tyrannical
Dictators/Regimes. Lectures include:- The Power of Defaults, Quagmire of
Conflicting Settings, Constant rule-changes to befuddle the masses etc.

------
aklemm
From a technical perspective, could a social network be built with acceptable
privacy policies and still have all the features users want (assuming no ads
and no profit motive necessary)?

------
xupybd
Can someone please supply Mr Stallman with a better template or some CSS. I
know he'll only use FOSS and is stuck with some basic tools, but I'm sure that
layout could be improved.

------
lemiffe
Great article, but the amount of HRs made me cringe a little bit.

------
anta40
So, what is the solution then?

I imagine something like switching to 'libre/free' social media, the way
people switch to Linux instead of Windows?

------
anta40
So, what is the solution then?

Switch to open social networking engine, like Elgg, the way people switch to
Linux from Windows?

------
gldev
I don't know about what he says but i know that his heart is in the right
place.

------
amaks
Interesting how much outcry this RMS's page causes. It's his personal opinion,
you're free to disagree with him but advocating to take down this link is
anti-constitutional.

------
delroekid
great content.. i quit facebook 4 years ago. same reasons rms has

------
superobserver
So is there a reason these are online? [removed link to photos out of concern
that it is unrelated to the OP]

~~~
saynsedit
What is your point? Criticizing Facebook is not inconsistent with posting a
curated list of photos online.

~~~
superobserver
What is your point? Pointing out a curated list of photos online does not
point to any inconsistency with critizing Facebook. If it does, that is merely
coincidental and does not speak to the intent behind my post.

~~~
saynsedit
Okay, what is the intent of your post?

~~~
superobserver
What is the intent of yours? Are you not able to understand a simple
interrogatory sentence? That seems unbelievable, given that you clearly know
how to write them.

~~~
saynsedit
Okay... So you just want to know why RMS has posted pictures online? How is
that relevant to original post at all?

------
gjdimitrov
Uh, yet another lecture on how to live my life by his omniscience

~~~
rubiquity
You forgot to sign your post:

Written from a computer running a bunch of software written by his omniscience

~~~
gst
Just because you are using someone's software doesn't mean that you need to
agree to that person's political views.

