
Reasons not to use Facebook - dguillot
https://stallman.org/facebook.html
======
headsoup
The biggest reason I can see now based on current rhetoric, is that _it 's a
trap._

Once in, you can't get out, even if you want to. That doesn't even factor
privacy or advertising or whatever, it's purely that you are attached to a
specific corporation just to maintain relationships.

If you want to get out: ask for contact details of those you need to
communicate with and advise you are working out a workaround.

There's no reason group admins and businesses can't set up a mailing or
instant messenger list that doesn't depend on Facebook, G+, Slack, etc. In
fact the owners of such groups and companies should be offering such things to
help everyone decide, now's a good time...

------
jolmg
> In some regions, 10% of Facebook useds don't realize that talking to
> Facebook is using the internet. And Facebook is directing millions of people
> into having no internet access except to Facebook.

I've seen people think Facebook _is_ the internet.

------
wdavidw
I have setup a facebook account a very long time but i always kept the same
basic usage and sticked to it, connect with friends, mostly nice persons I
meet while traveling. No photos, no walls, just a few messages now and then to
say hi. Nothing that would generate a all marketing industry at the expense of
privacy.

~~~
lev99
Who you friend are says a lot about you. So does what you talk about.

Sure, you're not generating the most marketing data out of all facebook users,
but you are generating a decent amount of marketing data.

~~~
simplezeal
Don’t forget that as you use your machine for visiting other sites, your usage
is being tracked using Advertising ID that most platforms expose. You don’t
need the same browser, the ID is stable until you reset it.

------
jijojv
Stallman hates the internet.

What's bad about: Airbnb | Amazon | Amtrak | Ancestry | Apple | Ebooks |
Eventbrite | Evernote | Facebook | Google | Intel | LinkedIn | Lyft | Meetup |
Microsoft | Netflix | Pay Toilets | Skype | Spotify | Twitter | Uber | Wendy's
|

~~~
anta40
So he explains some reasons why we should not use Facebook. Fine.

Next question is: do we have alternatives? You know, the "libre/FOSS" version?

GNU social or Diaspora, maybe?

~~~
LinuxBender
This is just my opinion, but I think the answer starts with first replacing
authentication mechanisms, thus allowing any group of people to try different
social apps, forums and chat servers using their common auth.

In my Utopian world, small groups of technical people would host OpenLDAP
servers and replicas. They would front end them with some open source
SAML2/OAuth providers. That would allow them as a small group to have forums,
chat servers, blogs, email, etc...

Their circle of non technical friends could then utilize all the services the
technical folks share the support of. If the LDAP master drops out, someone
else promotes their replica to master.

Why all this? No nation state back doors and potentially less risk if people
reuse passwords, since this group can also host email.

------
tluyben2
Nitpick: He seems to consistently spell ‘users’ as ‘useds’ in this article?

Edit; he does so everywhere. What am I missing?

~~~
bjoli
You are not a user of Facebook, you are used by Facebook.

~~~
Sir_Substance
I do wish Stallman articles wouldn't do this kind of thing. It's kind of like
those guys who used to unironically write "Micro$oft" on documents during the
90's/2000's. How can anyone take a document like that seriously?

That page should be amazing because it's just a long curated list of every
time someone has been majorly fucked by facebook. I really want a page like
that so that whenever someone says "why do you hate facebook so much?", I can
just say "read this" and then link them a massive litany of offenses.

Unfortunately, because it contains that snarky non-word, the entire page takes
on an aura of conspiracy mania. It could read like a legal document, but with
that one change it reads like a geocities site, and no one I link to it can
take it seriously. What a waste.

~~~
intopieces
Also referring to trans people as “cross-dressers” is generally not good form.
I don’t think he means anything by it, but it tends to put people off.

~~~
Sir_Substance
Except that he is actually literally talking about drag/cross-dressing which
is not the same thing as transsexualism, as you'd know if you'd clicked the
link on that line:

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/01/victory-d...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/01/victory-
drag-queens-facebook-apologises-real-name-policy)

Unfortunately I must say I think you're looking for reasons to be offended,
which never helps any discussion.

~~~
intopieces
If that’s what he meant that’s what he should have said. Using terminology
that can be even the least bit confusing never helps any discussion.

BTW, the link mentions trans people too. Stallman was using it as a catch all
term. Again, don’t think he meant anything by it (that is another way of
saying: “I am not personally offended by the words themselves because I
understand and acknowledge the context and intent of them”) but words matter
when you are trying to make a point.

~~~
thisacctforreal
From the article:

>Under pressure from cross-dressers, Facebook said it would relax the 'real
name' policy and allow people to use aliases, but only if they are generally
known by those aliases or if they were victims of certain types of abuse or
stalking.

I fail to see what he "should have said" instead, and I don't see where
confusion could arise other than the fact that trans & abuse victims were
affected as well.

------
hossbeast
I really hope this practice of saying "Facebook useds" becomes a meme and goes
viral.

~~~
majewsky
Given that he's been doing so for years, I'm skeptical.

------
typon
This is actually written in less of a hyperbolic tone than his usual articles.

------
cvaidya1986
Honestly I have seen very technical and privacy minded people still use it for
various reasons; I presume it will be a setback for the company and it will
bounce back in a year or so.

------
juice_bus
Of all his pages, this one is by far the largest.

~~~
nategri
Was surprised to see how chill (very relatively speaking) he is about Twitter.
In fact, it was apparently unobjectionable for some period.

------
askvictor
needs [2013] ? (at least judging my the copyright notice on the bottom)

~~~
hossbeast
He mentions Cambridge analytica, so this is contemporary.

------
muglug
(2013) should be removed - this page has been kept up-to-date, and includes
mention of Cambridge Analytica.

~~~
sctb
Thanks, we've removed it.

