You have not said why Stallman is wrong. You have said why you use Facebook. The fact that you do not care about Stallman's principles is a different topic.
The choice of using Facebook or not (or any other similar "product") is basically a prisoner's dilema, with millions or billions of prisoners instead of just two.
So indeed, doing the right thing will be a seemingly losing proposition, but the right thing is still not to use those "products".
Objecting to Stallman's objections will lead to no good. Only informing and teaching people, and transmitting Stallman's message, can eventually lead to some good.
Saying that Stallman is wrong is therefore wrong and bad.
Why is it bad? Because it leads to no good? That's your view, and I disagree - understanding that this approach doesn't lead to results is actually a way to let people like him understand that results come from a different strategy. In this sense, saying that he's wrong DOES good to his cause.
Stallman's objections about Facebook are idealistic and completely out of touch with the real world, lacking any hint of pragmatism. And the article objects on these grounds.
We shouldn't be surprised by Stallman's stance. It's his standard M.O. to favor idealism to an extreme degree, disregarding any pragmatic realities on the ground.
I don't mean to speak for RMS, but his stance seems pretty clear. He values freedom over convenience. When given a choice between the two, I think he will always choose freedom. I agree with his principles and I admire the fact that he seems to actually live by them. I think his stance only seems extreme because most of us aren't willing to give up our conveniences for our principles.
Why not to use Facebook?
Because there is some “average Joe” that doesnt give a shit about our planet and our society...he think only about himself.
(I actually use facebook, but RMS message is very important because it forces you to think critically, what do you really do of your social life is important, but secondary)
