> That’s because Stallman’s world was and still is, stuck in the 80s: computers are physical devices that users can own and keep in their homes. For that use case, the four freedoms, the definition of source code and installation tooling introduced in GPLv3 made a lot of sense. Nothing else seemed to matter to him. The decision for the Linux kernel not to adopt GPLv3 wasn’t considered a problem and it was often downplayed by FSF leadership.
...
> Folks closest to the FSF community were so myopic about completing GNU for Stallman’s laptop that nobody did anything about the big picture. I never heard anyone at the FSF ask what it means for a digital society that Facebook has been legally using free software to develop algorithms that modify human behavior. Quite the opposite, the problem was javascript in the browser for apps like Gmail.
The copyleft movement/FSF was always consistently focused on working within the legal framework of copyright. That's important, because the Supreme Court decided in the 1960s and 1970s that turning over custody of information to a third party essentially abrogates your rights/expectations to privacy. (See: Third party doctrine)
Does that make sense? Not to most modern technology practitioners. But there is nothing that you can do (outside of contract and market forces) to ensure control of information that you place in custody of a third party. Those "1980s" principles matter because that is the only thing that the law recognizes. When the law evolves and figures out how to deal with "virtual" custody of information, those same principles will be applied.
Yes, and the FSF does have something to say about facebook. Don't use it https://www.fsf.org/facebook. And afaik, they are working on writing more about this issue.
It's necessary advice given Facebook's practices and the lack of meaningful regulation to mandate certain practices.
There are many occupations where you are strongly advised to not use Facebook, or may expose yourself to significant financial, career or security risk if you do so.
That is only true for the U.S. People living in outside of the U.S, and especially in the E.U (which is the case of the author) have way to control they information after placing it in the custody of a third party.
I think this is were the FSF missed the goal. Laws like GDPR should have been fought for way earlier.
They were a non-starter in the US, and still are. The US has deeply-ingrained political views (started by the Revolution, reinforced in recent history by Nixon and the Cold War) that the powerful use institutional tools of privacy to avoid scrutiny.
> That’s because Stallman’s world was and still is, stuck in the 80s: computers are physical devices that users can own and keep in their homes. For that use case, the four freedoms, the definition of source code and installation tooling introduced in GPLv3 made a lot of sense. Nothing else seemed to matter to him. The decision for the Linux kernel not to adopt GPLv3 wasn’t considered a problem and it was often downplayed by FSF leadership.
...
> Folks closest to the FSF community were so myopic about completing GNU for Stallman’s laptop that nobody did anything about the big picture. I never heard anyone at the FSF ask what it means for a digital society that Facebook has been legally using free software to develop algorithms that modify human behavior. Quite the opposite, the problem was javascript in the browser for apps like Gmail.
The copyleft movement/FSF was always consistently focused on working within the legal framework of copyright. That's important, because the Supreme Court decided in the 1960s and 1970s that turning over custody of information to a third party essentially abrogates your rights/expectations to privacy. (See: Third party doctrine)
Does that make sense? Not to most modern technology practitioners. But there is nothing that you can do (outside of contract and market forces) to ensure control of information that you place in custody of a third party. Those "1980s" principles matter because that is the only thing that the law recognizes. When the law evolves and figures out how to deal with "virtual" custody of information, those same principles will be applied.