<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Paul/<br>
<div class="moz-text-plain" wrap="true" style="font-family:
-moz-fixed; font-size: 12px;" lang="x-western">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">Discouraging
people from using FB for example can be restated as
'encouraging people to use FS'.
</blockquote>
>> Not necessarily.<br>
<br>
The (logical:-/) *necessity* of leaving FB to use FS wasn't a
point I was making as far as I can see, and I wouldn't be keen to
pursue it because with more and more software being made available
of all kinds the situation clearly isn't a 'zero-sum game' (so to
speak).<br>
<br>
Human ingenuity I find has a canny knack of redefining things (and
'development' most often is in favour of the dominant idea - in
this case - 'global capital') so this was more about the
definition/articulation of FSFE's goals under such uncertain terms
and conditions.<br>
<br>
I wanted to illustrate that the problem with the way the FSFE
goals are often articulated dogmatically - in this negative way -
is not consistent with the four freedoms whereas the second
positive goal may also not be in the eyes of those that (for
example) believe that FSFE's aims should only be accomplished
using FS - because it's the only way to avoid critical
self-defeat.<br>
<br>
However, the positive form does benefit from allowing the
promotion of FSFE goals on both non-free and free platforms, which
from the perspective of the practicalities of political
campaigning for FS will I predict will be more effective simply
because of the 'visibility' aspect.<br>
<br>
The reality is of course we need (and have) individuals that
promote both versions and that's fine by me. But on the narrow
question about the FSFE political campaigning methods - any policy
on that ought not to extend to our individual free choice to
refuse those methods, likewise if the FSFE were to adopt a policy
of refusing non-free platforms (I think like the FSF?) I wouldn't
expect that choice to extend to individual FSFE members own
choices which may be different in some cases.<br>
<br>
I am sure none of the FS campaigning orgs are considering banning
people for using non-free software? I hope not, but that would be
the consequence of maintaining a very hard line on topics like
this I think.<br>
<br>
So, the confusion is that a policy decision made by the FSFE ought
to be made on what's best for the FSFE, not best for any
individual member. Hopefully this potential conflict will often
match both - but on the issue of promoting FSFE on FB, I don't
think there is much to be said for refusing to engage on FB at
that level while this ought not to be seen as a signal or
endorsement of the platform.<br>
<br>
If it sounds illogical/inconsistent/confusing that's because
reality is just like this. The individual campaigning around that
will have to be creative... a number of tactics could be used I
think for people expert in PR...<br>
<br>
>> So, people are not going to start using Free Software
just because they realise that being on Facebook is a bad idea
[...]<br>
<br>
Indeed, that's one permutation. Another one is people are not
going to start using Free Software - full stop. We have to get
used to that reality, over-zealous optimism for our cherished FS
may drive some people away, people that would otherwise stay and
listen to us perhaps? So, as a general rule I don't think it is
controversial to suggest a lot of people who become interested in
FS eventually attenuate their use of FB to almost zero so the
pressure must be on getting people interested in Free Software
surely, whether it's on FB or at our local brand of supermarket?<br>
<br>
While I applaud those that entertain the idea that we should only
talk about FS in publicly owned spaces like parks, I'm happy that
people are prepared to loosen their principles and talk about FS
in the marketplace of non-free too...<br>
<br>
I see sofware use as an 'ecology' not so much as an ideology.
There are some in the FS movement that have a zero tolerance on
proprietary software as an ideological principle. Often (but not
always) I agree there is good reason for this, especially in
public administration, health, education and possibly a few other
sectors.<br>
<br>
However, there are plenty of scenarios where proprietary software
isn't ideal but may be tolerable... social media may be one - but
it depends on a lot of other factors - the moral and legislative
context of individual consent vs. public health and safety and so
forth.
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">I don't feel
morally obliged to share and share-alike the mobile computer
game I made for my daughter, but when I develop software for an
educational
establishment my sense of obligation ramps up a lot.
</blockquote>
>> These are two different things, since you presumably
don't share the game with anyone else at all. If you don't, you
are actually touching upon the topic of creative works and why
people might not want to share everything they create: a matter
that some "free culture" people fail to understand.<br>
<br>
Yes, ontologically I agree my daughter is very different to an
educational establishment which is why i gave them as an example.
I think these two things demand different approaches to software
licensing and within the four freedoms this right to develop
software privately has to be included. Private property rights
then seem to be contained within the four freedoms and I have yet
to encounter anyone who is able to convince me otherwise, but I am
open to being persuaded. <br>
<br>
>> would you withhold the source code from your daughter if
she were to get into programming at that level?<br>
<br>
Who knows? My point is that to be morally consistent (if that is
important - and I think it is) individuals (partnerships,
cooperatives, non-profits and commercial companies) must have that
right to create software and keep it secret under the four
freedoms as a matter of principle - something many FS advocates
don't agree with it seems.<br>
<br>
>> Arguably, the primary message should be about those needs
and which Free Software solutions can address them, not about
"alternatives" to proprietary services. Because putting the
emphasis on proprietary services risks making them the benchmark
and Free Software the pale imitation. (People really do love their
famous brand names, sadly.)<br>
<br>
yes, that might be better... not sure... although 'needs' is still
very consumer-oriented? Software development for me ought to be
studied in the context of the humanities as well as STEM since
arts graduates often come better equipped with social critiques
than maths graduates?<br>
<br>
>> I doubt that Facebook became successful by telling
everyone how bad MySpace was.<br>
<br>
I would have to question the deployment of the words 'became
successful' here - 'made a lot of money' might be more accurate?<br>
<br>
>> I also imagine that Facebook probably didn't have an
account on MySpace for such purposes, either.<br>
<br>
Good point, although I don't think it's instructive to compare the
motivations of the advocates of FB with the motivations of FS
advocates and plenty of reasons to think the motivations are
divergent and possibly antithetical?<br>
<br>
>> "Here is a great solution for sharing news with your
family and friends. You can modify and share it as you like, and
isn't it nice that it doesn't spy on you or sell your personal
information?"<br>
<br>
Yes of course, but the thread here (as far as I understand it) is
quite a narrow scope - it's about if we think it's okay for the
FSFE to post those messages on FB or not.<br>
<br>
My current view is it is NOT inconsistent with the FSFE
aims/goals, and it is advantageous in many ways to increase
exposure to the FS message.<br>
<br>
I think posting creatively and sensitively on non-free platforms
like FB and twitter is an important part of the FSFE's marketing
mix and should be carried out and reviewed annually - until such
time as it becomes ineffective/redundant/.../... (insert negative
adjective) <br>
<br>
I suppose the remaining question is: What does everyone else
think?<br>
<br>
/m<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>