
Reasons Not to Use Google (2015) - dsr12
https://stallman.org/google.html
======
jusq
At some point I realized I have more than enough local disk space to maintain
and run my own local search engine.

So I have been saving and indexing every page of my browsing history and
bookmarks for the past 3-4 years. I have a local copy of
wikipedia/stackoverflow and offline docs via Zeal. The only time I need google
these days is for casual map location/distance queries. I am too lazy to type
out the details of my setup but it works quite well.

I point people at this link and the associated search project for similar
ideas - [http://aurelieherbelot.net/how-small-is-the-world-wide-
web-r...](http://aurelieherbelot.net/how-small-is-the-world-wide-web-really/)

Initially the only thing that I missed out on and struggled with was news
(cause at the time google news had been my default homepage for a while).
After trying all kinds of url/keyword blocking at various levels (browser/host
file/router) I am finally down to 2 hours of internet a day.

Why am I doing all this - cause the web today (including hacker news) is just
wasting my time. Tim Wu makes the case much better than I could here -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xm-1CoAuw8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xm-1CoAuw8)

~~~
akavel
Is there a chance you could reconsider and try sharing some of the details of
your setup? I never imagined one could try doing something like that, and even
now that you triggered my imagination (and after reading the link), I have
hard time picturing how to even start building such a setup, not to mention a
_practically usable_ one???

------
edanm
I get where Richard Stallman is coming from.

But, practicality aside, and sometimes childish tone aside (e.g. derogatory
names for companies) here's what really bothers me: the framing of this as a
moral issue.

I can get behind the idea that non-free code might be a problem, sometimes. I
can get behind the idea that we should, in some situations, strive to have
non-free code. But why is this a _moral_ issue at all? Why can't reasonable
people get together and decide that proprietary code makes sense for some
situations, and that doesn't make them or the people using the code _morally
wrong_?

I have a hard time with people whose shtick is mostly "appeal to emotions".

~~~
hyperdunc
Perhaps those reasonable people are making a moral judgement when they decide
to use proprietary code in a certain circumstance: they're deciding it's
morally acceptable.

And maybe it isn't morally acceptable in some circumstances. Like when
transparency is required in order to facilitate accountability and peace of
mind.

It's immoral to have closed-source voting machines. But is it immoral to rely
on closed-source search algorithms? The answer to that is less obvious. Either
way, moral issues affect code all the time.

~~~
legulere
> It's immoral to have closed-source voting machines.

Bullshit. The problem is voting machines in general. They are too complex and
you cannot observe how they work. This opens up elections to get manipulated
regardless if open source is used or not. This is also not a moral problem,
but a technological problem. The moral problem is in setting the requirements,
the technological problem is in solving them.

What I do not understand in regards to voting computers, is why you need the
computer part anyway. If you want fast counting, punch cards suffice.

~~~
jedikv
Why even have a punch card? Just a paper and pen/pencil should suffice.

------
xook
Obvious privacy issues aside, Stallman has always come off - to me - as
someone who doesn't really see the bigger picture. I thank him for taking a
stance against corruption, but there is a line between practical and
impractical.

I don't know him personally, but his being top wheel of the FSF has skewed his
reality. I cannot remember where I heard it, but I believe he is quoted
(heavily paraphrasing here) along the lines of, "I may be fighting a losing
fight, but it's all I can do, and I won't stop until I'm dead."

Practicality is the ultimate deciding factor at its core. Practicality decides
whether you use a GPL-based license or the Apache license. Practicality
decides whether you choose to avoid a website because of non-free Javascript.
Practicality decides whether you can eat that muffin and switch gears on the
road, and so on. It is a bit like using secure services and utilizing OpSec.
Where do _you_ draw the line between convenience and security? Where does it
stop being practical and where does it matter to stick to a principle?

Maybe he is just aging, and his brain is in an infinite loop. As I said, I do
not know the man myself. But not having a clear focus of how life is for a
majority of people can be a huge factor.

~~~
kristopolous
No need to be polite. Extremist weirdos are behind essentially all important,
groundbreaking, awesome things.

A well mannered "normal" person would have never written the GPL and would
have tolerated software that didn't match their politics.

The fringe provides a mandatory function in steering the cultural ship.

Early advocates for things like minimum wages or child labor laws were Molotov
cocktail throwing anarchists. Early women suffragists were equally way out
there - even by quite permissive modern standards.

Subversives are necessary in order to subvert and often make the world a
better place.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
"The reasonable man adapts to the world, while the unreasonable man tries to
adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the
unreasonable man."

~~~
bryanrasmussen
really, do reasonable people do absolutely nothing to adapt the world to
themselves? The reasonable person isn't able to think well that is messed up
and I would like it to change, or hmm, I think this could be improved a bit.
The history of small innovations in things (as opposed to the more impressive
big and rare innovations) would indicate that yes, reasonable people do try to
adapt the world to themselves to some extent. Because to never attempt to
adapt the world to oneself would mean not just that one was unreasonable, but
maybe also that one was not even human.

~~~
kristianc
Judging by the experiments in both far-left and far-right governments in the
20th Century, we can be quite grateful that for the most part we have had
leaders who are grateful to tinker at the edges.

------
austincheney
I prefer DuckDuckGo. Privacy issues aside they just strive to be the better
search engine for software developers. And they have an open source platform
for displaying a selected tool or result to a software request query called
DuckDuckHack.

[https://duckduckhack.com/](https://duckduckhack.com/)

~~~
NovaS1X
I've been using DDG exclusively for almost two years now. I honestly forget
that I'm using it most of the time. I can "Google" things and I always get
what I'm after. It perfectly replaces Google 100% for me.

~~~
__david__
I think that it's far worse than google. Don't get me wrong, it's still my
main search engine, but I find I have to revert to google to find what I want
between 30% and 50% of the time.

~~~
svarrall
Agree. I'm in the same position. I find it particularly poor and combining
multiple search terms, where it seems to favour the most popular of the terms
and ignore the important narrowing keywords important to the search.

~~~
odabaxok
Another agree. Also, it is way behind with localized searches.

------
jmartinpetersen
Why is it a problem for him that Google serves you non-GPL Javascript, but not
that they host all your files and can remove them at will? Or that they can
remove all the backend services whenever they please? I find it really hard to
follow his line of thoughts at times, but he's usually some sort of internally
consistent, so what am I missing?

------
wonko1
His reasoning that it uses "non-free JavaScript" seems a bit redundant these
days (given that almost every site does).

I always value Stallman's commitment, but it's often impractical to maintain
while being a productive member of society.

Keeps me considering the possibility of freer alternatives though, and I find
it valuable for that reason alone.

~~~
bleahYuck
Just because everybody does it, doesn't make it right.

~~~
rabbyte
Just because it's right, doesn't make it practical.

It can be occupy protesters who own iPhones to coordinate or open source
purists who use Slack to join projects they love or environmentalists filling
their gas tank. In the end, there has to be a more practical strategy that
enables a person to fight for the world they want while living in the world
that exists.

~~~
kuschku
> open source purists who use Slack

That is inexcusable, though.

There are more alternatives than you can count, if you use Matrix, Mattermost,
some webirc system with included bouncer, or whatever.

~~~
rabbyte
You misunderstand. It was not the open source purist that chose Slack, it was
the wave of popular projects all on Slack the open source purist could no
longer resist joining. The alternative to Slack in their case isn't IRC, it's
doing another line of work as all the projects within their chosen area of
expertise are on Slack. Same is true of my other examples, there's a tipping
point where your principled stance forces you to be an outlier, completely
irrelevant to the world.

edit- In this case, the open source purist has to join Slack if only to beg
people to go to IRC, a move that is at that point more energy than the
community will think worth the purists principled gain.

------
bamboozled
I agree with Stallman, he sounds like radical but he always has been.

We should consider that maybe the Internet really has become a mass
surveillance tool, a privacy issue, a billboard and maybe even a distraction
from the real issues humans face today.

We might have to except the fact that Google is now, just another major
corporation trying to grow infinitely and is less concerned about what it
takes to stay at the top, they're walking an ethical tight rope of their own
making, especially with regards to supporting the TPP.

I use alternatives frequently now and I feel better for it. DuckDuckGo, TOR,
Diconnect.me etc.

We as tech focused people could be doing more to protect users online privacy
and I applaud Stallman for having the courage to speak out about these issues,
they are important.

------
NuDinNou
I've been using DuckDuckGo instead of Google for the past 2 years and I'm
happy with it. I love the bangs feature
[https://duckduckgo.com/bang](https://duckduckgo.com/bang)

------
Santosh83
Nothing inherently wrong in companies, profit, or even proprietary software.
It is abuse and misuse of their power and capacity that we should raises of
voices (and choices against). For example I consciously avoid Google Chrome
because I object to how it is bundled with literally every Android phone,
bundled with a lot of unrelated software and you cannot browse through any
Google web property without being nagged to use/install Chrome from time to
time, even after I dismiss those prompts. I see this as incipient abuse of
power that could grow a lot worse if we keep turning a blind eye. But not all
Google products/effors need to be tarred with a broad brush. Everything
depends...

------
verandaguy
It's already been brought up in this thread, but I'm concerned that RMS is
undermining his own points by distancing himself from reality, allowing him to
exaggerate them to the point where nobody takes him seriously anymore.

Nobody on Earth* will restrict themselves to using only websites, operating
systems, and software and hardware packages which are fully free and open
source. That would be insanely restrictive, and generally speaking -- at the
risk of being blunt -- you'd be resorting to consistently using lower-quality,
less-supported software a lot of the time†.

I'm sure he's got some valid points, but his approach to modern technology
based on them essentially involves reverting back to the days of the extremely
early internet, where the actual person-to-person networking was restricted to
mailing lists and IRC; two formats which the majority of internet users today
likely wouldn't be crazy about compared to the alternatives.

    
    
        * who wants to be a normal and productive member of modern society
    
        † not that there isn't great F/OSS software out there -- Linux and BSD are absolute wonders compared to Windows, but a lot of the time it's like comparing the GIMP to Photoshop -- there's just more refinement in a piece of software developed by thousands of paid, dedicated, full-time developers over two or so decades.

~~~
bhawks
Even when RMS started the GNU project his approach to (then) modern technology
was at an extreme. There were no free compilers, editors, or even trivial
userland tools like grep. Instead of being pragmatic, he (and others) worked
to create what was missing.

I wouldn't be surprised to find a decades old USENET post that hits all the
same points about RMS that you (and others in this thread) bring up. RMS's
distance from reality and staunch commitment to principles has been a feature,
not a bug.

Don't get me wrong, I also believe that the idealized free-software world is a
utopia that we're very unlikely to see. However, RMS's efforts have resulted
in (and will continue to produce) a tremendously positive impact for humanity.

~~~
LeanderK
i don't even believe a free-software world is desirable without a new way to
structure our society. I don't know if i want that. I am also very critical of
RMS and his "propaganda"-style of writing.

But this doesn't mean that what he is doing is bad for society or not
important. I respect his work and what he has achieved, i just don't share the
vision. It's often important to be somewhat crazy to achieve greatness.

------
tzs
> Google supports the TPP because of three mostly-evil provisions that would
> benefit Google

According to the link he gave to Google's statement on TPP, here are the three
provisions as described by Google:

#1> The Internet has revolutionized how people can share and access
information, and the TPP promotes the free flow of information in ways that
are unprecedented for a binding international agreement. The TPP requires the
12 participating countries to allow cross-border transfers of information and
prohibits them from requiring local storage of data. These provisions will
support the Internet’s open architecture and make it more difficult for TPP
countries to block Internet sites -- so that users have access to a web that
is global, not just local.

#2> The TPP provides strong copyright protections, while also requiring fair
and reasonable copyright exceptions and limitations that protect the Internet.
It balances the interests of copyright holders with the public’s interest in
the wider distribution and use of creative works -- enabling innovations like
search engines, social networks, video recording, the iPod, cloud computing,
and machine learning. The endorsement of balanced copyright is unprecedented
for a trade agreement. The TPP similarly requires the kinds of copyright safe
harbors that have been critical to the Internet’s success, with allowances for
some variation to account for different legal systems.

#3> The TPP advances other important Internet policy goals. It prohibits
discrimination against foreign Internet services, limits governments’ ability
to demand access to encryption keys or other cryptographic methods, requires
pro-innovation telecom access policies, prohibits customs duties on digital
products, requires proportionality in intellectual property remedies, and
advances other key digital goals.

#1 and #3 sound like things that Stallman would like. Anyone happen to know
what he dislikes about them?

~~~
bamboozled
I believe it doesn't sound so bad because that's Google interpretation of why
the TPP is good for Google. But the TPP is a huge deal and there are many
different aspects to it. I think the point Stallman is making here, is they're
lobbying for something that would be harmful for the future of mankind, out of
self-interest.

I believed in Google because I believe in "don't be evil", but we're passed
that now, regrettably.

------
faragon
Stallman is right. However, people, myself included, use Google services
(search/email/groups/docs/maps/youtube/etc.) because it is easy, cheap, and
good.

------
hashmal
I'm using google less and less, and it's not because of any of this. I find
the results just not as relevant as before. The web viewed through google's
lens seem to be just about content marketing and outdated stuff.

------
drinchev
People can hardly choose use / don't use Google anymore. If there should be a
protest against Google and other big companies, I expect it to be lead by
governments and regulations.

I don't mind companies use non-free software, but I do mind if they do
whatever they want with their users on a legal basis.

Not to mention government services, built with .NET, which yeah - you are
obliged to use.

~~~
bostand
There are reasons for avoiding Google, but I found Stallman's list a bit odd.
Why do I care if the javascript I use to sign up on Google+ is not free?

Now if you don't like being tracked at all time 1: enable privacy options for
your Google account 2: avoid using Google Play and 3: start using duckduckgo

~~~
rahoulb
Ultimately all RMS's issues come down to "who do you trust?"

If you enable all your Google account privacy options - can you be sure that
they do what they say they are doing? How do you know that? Can you be sure
your information isn't being intercepted along the way?

If you trust Google then fine.

But if there is even the slightest amount of doubt then someone you trust
(preferably you yourself) needs to audit the code and every pathway the data
travels along before you can be absolutely sure.

~~~
bostand
I don't think what you say really applies in this particular context.

Sure you may 100% trust someones open code, but if you don't have any insight
in their backend once again it comes down to who you trust the most.

~~~
rahoulb
Which is why you need to audit every pathway the data travels along.

And why RMS only uses computers with free software firmware.

------
ifdefdebug
> "A nonfree program submits the users to the power of the program's
> developer."

That's true but it's not evil to offer nonfree programs. It's my choice to run
it or not.

------
TheSpiceIsLife
tl;dr: because non-free JavaScript. Also tracking.

Okay, thanks for your opinion RMS.

