This was raised by Jonas in the thread about proprietary software, but it is a completely different topic, so I'm starting this thread about it: "we also don't do negative campaigning overall. We tell people they should use Free Software; we don't tell them what software they should not be using."
The reality is, many sites and software vendors deceive users with a promise of security. E.g. when a user accesses Gmail, they see the padlock icon in their browser, so doesn't that mean Gmail is secure? If Gmail is secure and free software is secure, the user may ask why make the effort to change to free software?
Is it negative to say, for example, "Debian doesn't send 10,000 telemetry reports per day" and hope the user realizes we are comparing to Microsoft Windows 10?
If I was in somebody's house and I saw their kitchen had caught fire, should I avoid talking about it because it is a negative topic and they might feel bad? Or should I warn somebody?
What about a hidden risk that most people can't see, for example, if you were an official who knew about the contamination[1] in the water in Flint, Michigan, should you keep your mouth shut? Or would people thank you for sharing negative information?
It would be really interesting to hear perspectives people have about how to introduce threats without appearing to be negative. For example, what narrative do we need to use to give proprietary software the same urgency as a burning kitchen or contaminated water?
Regards,
Daniel
On 07/26/2017 12:14 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
This was raised by Jonas in the thread about proprietary software, but it is a completely different topic, so I'm starting this thread about it: "we also don't do negative campaigning overall. We tell people they should use Free Software; we don't tell them what software they should not be using."
The reality is, many sites and software vendors deceive users with a promise of security. E.g. when a user accesses Gmail, they see the padlock icon in their browser, so doesn't that mean Gmail is secure? If Gmail is secure and free software is secure, the user may ask why make the effort to change to free software?
Also, there's this: The point of the free software movement is that proprietary software strips the user of control.
The history (and, I might add, mythology) of our movement points to Richard Stallman's experience at MIT in the 70s and 80s as pivotal, culminating with the practical problems caused by a proprietary and NDA'ed driver for a brand new Xerox printer.
The crux of this philosophy is that free software is *neutral* and may be good or bad and do good or bad things, but that proprietary software is fundamentally broken in that it disrespects its user's freedoms. We're of course not dictating people what to do or what not to do, but one of the movement's goals must be to educate people that//no proprietary software is inside neutral-may-be-good-may-be-bad territory.
That is, software being free is not associated with it being good - it's the *minimum requirement* for any software to be even acceptable. It does not follow that it's acceptable just because it's free - e.g., a free browser could still monitor its users (but users would be able and entitled to change that).
I don't see how to communicate this point without saying or implying negative things about proprietary software.
Best Carsten
Il giorno mer 26 lug 2017 alle 13:28, Ioli Papadopoulou i.papadopoulou@sophimail.com ha scritto:
Excellent topic; thank you for bringing it up.
Avoiding negative language will help us become BETTER ambassadors of FOSS. Negative language creates negative feelings about us!
We can simply take lessons from other industries facing the same problem. For example, let's see the language of small "natural cosmetics" when they try to fight against "synthetic" dominant competitors. They keep on pointing out what they do better, to the Customers benefit: "no parabens, no additives, no chemicals, only natural ingredients" etc. They do not name or imply their competitor. They just repeat what is "better for you" and "does not harm you".
So, to come back to software: we could use strong laconic statements, such as: "Debian sends no telemetry reports". It is true, everybody understands it and it is not aggressive.
Hi Ioli
It looks like your opinion is the opposite of Daniel's opinion. He's saying that we, as free software activists, should do _more_ negative campaigning. Why? Because a positive attitude, like caring for the privacy of the users, may be perceived as more valuable if people knew that proprietary software/services behave very bad in this regard.
I agree with Daniel and I don't think that negative campaigning means negative language. The american FSF has done lot of negative campaigning, in a polite and positive way (as when you provide alternatives).
Persistence and patience are necessary, too. People need time to contemplate and then change; they cannot change overnight.
Is it possible to make a "collection" of nice, positive statements about FOSS and then distribute them to all members? I thing that some of us, including me, would need some help, in "expressing in a positive way"!
Something like this? :-) https://fsfe.org/campaigns/ilovefs/whylovefs/whylovefs.en.html
On 27/07/17 00:36, Federico Bruni wrote:
It looks like your opinion is the opposite of Daniel's opinion. He's saying that we, as free software activists, should do _more_ negative campaigning. Why? Because a positive attitude, like caring for the privacy of the users, may be perceived as more valuable if people knew that proprietary software/services behave very bad in this regard.
Not quite - my email was intended as a question to start debate rather than a strict opinion.
However, I would like to bring up a concept from the world of sales: people don't do something unless they have a problem to solve.
Example: you don't take a morning off work every week to take your car to the garage for a service if the car appears to be running well. You do take it for a service at the recommended interval because of fear that: a) you will void the warranty if the service is missed, or b) it will break down far away from home in the middle of the night, or c) it will break badly and require repairs more expensive than the service
I made far more money in the year 1999 than in the year 2000 because businesses perceived a problem occurring on 31.12.1999 and they brought forward many IT upgrades.
Reminding customers about Y2K was not seen as negative campaigning, it was seen as being helpful and protecting them from disaster.
Rather than calling it "negative campaigning", maybe we need to talk about what problems people have today, do they know about those problems and only after we've made the problem as big in their mind as the Y2K bug can we position free software as the solution.
I would agree with the point about avoiding personal attacks and excessively inaccurate campaigns. That is one particular type of negative campaigning that sometimes works in the short term (election campaigns) but not in the long term as people find out they've been fooled.
Here is one famous example, you can't get much more negative than nuking a little girl but it was effective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k
Regards,
Daniel
I guess that everybody has a different idea of what "negative campaigning" may be. I like how Daniel tried to frame the discussion below.
Il giorno gio 27 lug 2017 alle 9:17, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro ha scritto:
On 27/07/17 00:36, Federico Bruni wrote:
It looks like your opinion is the opposite of Daniel's opinion. He's saying that we, as free software activists, should do _more_ negative campaigning. Why? Because a positive attitude, like caring for the privacy of the users, may be perceived as more valuable if people knew that proprietary software/services behave very bad in this regard.
Not quite - my email was intended as a question to start debate rather than a strict opinion.
However, I would like to bring up a concept from the world of sales: people don't do something unless they have a problem to solve.
Example: you don't take a morning off work every week to take your car to the garage for a service if the car appears to be running well. You do take it for a service at the recommended interval because of fear that: a) you will void the warranty if the service is missed, or b) it will break down far away from home in the middle of the night, or c) it will break badly and require repairs more expensive than the service
I made far more money in the year 1999 than in the year 2000 because businesses perceived a problem occurring on 31.12.1999 and they brought forward many IT upgrades.
Reminding customers about Y2K was not seen as negative campaigning, it was seen as being helpful and protecting them from disaster.
Rather than calling it "negative campaigning", maybe we need to talk about what problems people have today, do they know about those problems and only after we've made the problem as big in their mind as the Y2K bug can we position free software as the solution.
I agree.
The most difficult part is "make the problem as big in their mind as..".
Take online privacy or security in general (against viruses and malware). Recent history should have taught something to the masses, but did they change their behaviour? Probably just a very tiny tiny percentage. When I happen to talk about these issues to friends, because something gives me the chance to, I find a wall of indifference most of the times.
I would like to add just that a simple consideration into the table: negative campaign doesn't propose a solution, it may be present in the initial message but it would most likely be lost when referring to a friend. Also a negative message is usually associated with a losing party.
Indeed, he has a point. This can be associated with a losing party by some people.
However, since I don't know if he considers "negative campaigns" as "those saying things without facts and references being exposed" or if he considers "negative campaigns" as "those merely based on insults". I would consider the first case to be signalling a losing party. However, the second case for me is mainly used by a losing party.
Hello,
I am one of the people that have argued against negative campaigning in the past. From the discussion however, even after many emails there is still not a common understanding what it is. Daniel gave some examples, let me build on top of that:
“Free Software is good as it gives you choice and control over your data.” - a positive, user oriented message that tells people what they should think about when choosing what to use. Good. “Proprietary social networks aggregate your data and sell it, which may violate your privacy.” - a neutral, fact-based message that conveys a clear problem. Not negative campaigning. Good. “You should feel bad because you are using Windows, you should use Linux instead.” - a negative, aggressive message that makes somebody feel bad because of a choice they made (for reasons we don’t even know). Negative campaigning. Bad.
This is a fine line to draw. I do think that we can agree that fact-based, neutral arguments are necessary (maybe we should test that in a poll or so). In my opinion, we should refrain from anything that can be read like “you moron, why are you using XYZ, we know better than you, use this”. Not only does this put a person into a defensive position, it is also a good way to make sure that person avoids exposure to us in the future.
Unfortunately, the condescending tone of the last example is still quite common in situations where interested outsiders come to a free software event. We should be better than this. Especially because we have a clear, freedom focused message that explains itself pretty well.
Best,
Mirko.
On Monday 31. July 2017 09.23.18 Mirko Boehm - FSFE wrote:
“Free Software is good as it gives you choice and control over your data.”
- a positive, user oriented message that tells people what they should
think about when choosing what to use. Good.
Agreed.
“Proprietary social networks aggregate your data and sell it, which may violate your privacy.” - a neutral, fact-based message that conveys a clear problem. Not negative campaigning. Good.
Right. But the problem here is that a lot of people don't know which social networks are proprietary. Maybe they didn't care about things being proprietary to begin with, and so they still aren't any wiser about what such a message means.
Some people still also think that "proprietary" is good because it is like the magic "secret ingredient" that makes a product "taste better". The challenge then becomes about making a clear message that doesn't need to do too much explaining.
“You should feel bad because you are using Windows, you should use Linux instead.” - a negative, aggressive message that makes somebody feel bad because of a choice they made (for reasons we don’t even know). Negative campaigning. Bad.
Criticising the person for making a choice, informed or otherwise, is obviously bad. Everyone makes choices that they later regret, wishing they had known more about a topic, and it doesn't help to blame them for their circumstances.
However, you missed an example between these last two, where one might mention examples of proprietary services by name. This is the risky part because, framed as a classical advertising situation, you're talking about "the competition" who might not like you talking about disadvantages of their products.
(What also complicates things for organisations like FSFE is that some of these service operators fund and develop Free Software. So, there are certain common interests, even if those services are proprietary and hostile to interoperability.)
Being able to point to specific solutions that do what people want, that are Free Software and encourage interoperability, is also helpful so that people know what to do with a message. Unfortunately, people probably feel that they get told to stop doing something, but the alternative is either unclear or involves a lot of extra effort in a field they are ill-equipped to investigate.
Paul
On Sunday 30. July 2017 12.22.04 Federico Bruni wrote:
Take online privacy or security in general (against viruses and malware). Recent history should have taught something to the masses, but did they change their behaviour? Probably just a very tiny tiny percentage. When I happen to talk about these issues to friends, because something gives me the chance to, I find a wall of indifference most of the times.
Right. So in order to give this discussion some focus, as opposed to people not bothering to quote the things they are referring to and having a discussion about arbitrary definitions of "negative campaigning", let us consider an example of something we might not like and how we might respond:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/30/13-step-digital-declutter... clean-up-online
Here, the author presents a classic "how to deal with the symptoms" article. The average technology consumer, having joined every online service and installed every fashionable "app" known to mankind, now finds their "digital life" cluttered.
What might we say that not only communicates that the way of dealing with the symptoms is inadequate, even harmful (as the reader asks some other service to trawl the messages in their webmail account to "fix" their problem), but that Free Software (and services that respect their privacy) would have prevented many of these things in the first place?
Merely saying that Free Software is "great" will probably not be enough. The uninformed reader probably thinks that their favourite exploitative online service is "great", but just not as shiny and fun as it once was.
Paul
Hi,
On Freitag, 28. Juli 2017 19:43:32 CEST Ioli Papadopoulou wrote:
Thank you for your comments. This is what I am trying to say: Yes to a negative campaign, but in a POLITE and POSITIVE way.
So: no negative campaigning ;-)
I think this debate is missing the point about negative campaigning: the goal of negative campaigning is to paint someone in a bad light. It's not about pointing out facts.
Let's contrive an example: „Why wouldn't I support the FSFE? They are all for supporting user rights, aren't they?“ - „The FSFE knows about and condones usage of free software by NSA and other agencies to spy on citizens. By allowing usage of free software in armed drones they support unlawful killings of people around the world.“
This statement is not exactly false. It stretches the truth by glossing over the reasons why no-military-usage clauses are generally not endorsed by the FSFE. And finally, it adds a highly emotionalized context to the message.
The whole point of negative campaigning is to prevent people from judging by the facts. If facts can be used to support the message somehow it's nice (because it makes defense harder), but the whole thing would equally work with outright lies.
To throw my own ethics over board for a moment, let's consider the advantages of negative campaigning: + it increases the reach of a message (due to its emotional nature) + it increases the reach of a message (because it's usually short and catchy) + it puts the opponent into a defensive position
Ethics apart, there are still drawbacks, though: - it emphases emotions over facts - it passes the moral high ground to the opponent - if you "get caught", you damage your own public standing
That said, it's just plain unethical in my book and should not be considered on that reason alone. Negative campaigning stands in a direct conflict with what we (the FSFE) stand for: informed user choice.
Cheers, Johannes
[...] let's consider the advantages of negative campaigning:
- it increases the reach of a message (due to its emotional nature)
Or not. In Europe we are "shocked", "outraged", "indignados" every day. We've got enough of that. Negative messages have no effect at all, in my opinion. Then we, (fs people) complain anyways for each and every move to the worse (be it a law, a business model, a new damaging technical achievement). So people *already* know us as the ones who complain.
Negative campaigning doesn't work. You may be self-confident you are on the right side and you see (and shout) the evils of the world, but at the same time you run fast into irrelevance.
- it increases the reach of a message (because it's usually short and catch=
y)
Bah. We should aim at short and catchy positive messages. "just say no" or "fuck off" will not work. I love "hacking for freedom", and "there is no cloud". The latter btwis not negative: it explains what the cloud is, without saying "do not use it". Actually, not all decentralized systems are bad evem in the strictest possible attitude).
- it puts the opponent into a defensive position
No. The opponent ignores us, just like everyone. Have we *ever* got a reply from our direct attack to misbehaving companies? Worse, most "negative" messages repeat (and thus reinforce) commercial names. Make a cell phone that may, very rarely, explode, and you get free advertisement of your brand in every airport for a few months.
And even if you are at a conference on the stage with your "opponent", by attacking you usually shows you have no arguments. It's what our most unsuccessful politicians do all the time.
/alessandro, member of several associations but not represeting anyone
Thanks Johannes and Alessandro for a good explanation what negative campaigning actually is and how it can backfire to the sender. Some nitpicking comments from my perspective:
# Alessandro Rubini [2017-07-30 11:26 +0200]:
Negative campaigning doesn't work. You may be self-confident you are on the right side and you see (and shout) the evils of the world, but at the same time you run fast into irrelevance.
Depends. For some organisations such strategy may work because they use the created emotions to mobilize their audience for short-term (counter-)activities. For example, demonstrations against something often work this way and sometimes have large success while positive demonstrations often fail (Pulse of Europe for example, IMHO).
But the FSFE has different goals and runs campaigns over a much longer time frame. Also, our supporter base is different in parts. So I largely agree to what you said, Alessandro.
- it puts the opponent into a defensive position
No. The opponent ignores us, just like everyone. Have we *ever* got a reply from our direct attack to misbehaving companies? Worse, most "negative" messages repeat (and thus reinforce) commercial names. Make a cell phone that may, very rarely, explode, and you get free advertisement of your brand in every airport for a few months.
And even if you are at a conference on the stage with your "opponent", by attacking you usually shows you have no arguments. It's what our most unsuccessful politicians do all the time.
Well, sometimes the FSFE has also used "negative tones" to reach a short-term goal, for example with the LiMux scandal in Munich earlier this year. Within one week we had to provoke some attention within the (Munich) population, the local politicians, and the media. So we had to start our public message with something negative ("look what the f**k is happening over there!") and mix that with something positive ("keep following your Free Software strategy and you'll be better"). But these are rare cases and are more of a short-term communication strategy than long-term campaigning.
A word or two about "negative facts": positive campaigning doesn't exclude naming negative facts about proprietary solutions or the current state. Quite the contrary: we often need the comparison with what's not good to explain why and how Free Software would be better. But "positive" campaigning doesn't start its message with something attacking, and it always shows realistic solutions. In the Facebook case outlined in this thread, this could be:
"Free Software social networks are awesome, use them!" -> "Why? Because Facebook is the worst you can use, see ABC." -> "Diaspora, GNU Social, Friendica are much better because XYZ, we show you how they work."
In my opinion, just screaming "Facebook is evil!" is yet another scandal, and one that isn't the most interesting of the dozens of those we see and hear each day unfortunately.
Best, Max
On 30/07/17 11:26, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
And even if you are at a conference on the stage with your "opponent", by attacking you usually shows you have no arguments. It's what our most unsuccessful politicians do all the time.
Well, Brexit was all about negative and they "won". Not sure I like their prize though: the price of holidays for UK citizens is now 20% higher because the pound collapsed.
Il giorno mer 26 lug 2017 alle 12:14, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro ha scritto:
[...]
Is it negative to say, for example, "Debian doesn't send 10,000 telemetry reports per day" and hope the user realizes we are comparing to Microsoft Windows 10?
If I was in somebody's house and I saw their kitchen had caught fire, should I avoid talking about it because it is a negative topic and they might feel bad? Or should I warn somebody?
What about a hidden risk that most people can't see, for example, if you were an official who knew about the contamination[1] in the water in Flint, Michigan, should you keep your mouth shut? Or would people thank you for sharing negative information?
It would be really interesting to hear perspectives people have about how to introduce threats without appearing to be negative. For example, what narrative do we need to use to give proprietary software the same urgency as a burning kitchen or contaminated water?
As in the Flint example, I'm always grateful to people who open my mind to negative information I was ignoring. I feel it as a positive step for my critical conscience (even if sometimes I'd feel better not to know). And if I can do something, my little tiny contribution, to react, then I feel better than before.
I started being involved in free software because I was attracted by the positive arguments (e.g.: being part of an international community, learning new stuff, contributing to the commons, etc.). It was 10 years ago, perhaps the situation of "digital rights" was less negative than now. I think that negative campaigning matters today more than in the past.
Daniel Pocock wrote:
This was raised by Jonas in the thread about proprietary software, but it is a completely different topic, so I'm starting this thread about it: "we also don't do negative campaigning overall. We tell people they should use Free Software; we don't tell them what software they should not be using."
Trying to manage other people's feelings, or framing issues in terms of "negative" (and presumably "positive") language is a wasteful distraction that doesn't address substantive issues we can solve with software freedom.
Each of us is responsible for our own feelings, not other people's feelings. We're responsible for bringing to people's understanding how computers work and the ethical ramifications for choosing software the computer owner can't run, inspect, share, and modify (including non-technical users who need these services even if it means not doing this work themselves).
Free software delivers these freedoms, non-free (proprietary, user-subjugating) software does not by design (in both cases).
I have to wonder: if FSFE is seriously getting caught up in framing debates like this, is FSFE an open source advocacy group or a free software advocacy group? The tension between the two philosophies arose because open source was designed to get away from software freedom while insincerely pitching a development methodology that resembles what is done to make free software. Open source eschews software freedom and reliably gives into proprietary software (as https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html points out, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?"). I'd expect an open source proponent to raise feelings maintenance into the discussion as though it were relevant and wise, knowing that the time spent on this non-issue is time not spent helping people understand what software freedom is and why software freedom matters for its own sake.
The reality is, many sites and software vendors deceive users with a promise of security. E.g. when a user accesses Gmail, they see the padlock icon in their browser, so doesn't that mean Gmail is secure? If Gmail is secure and free software is secure, the user may ask why make the effort to change to free software?
We can explain that this muddles multiple separate issues together. Gmail runs on free software for Google (Google wrote their own software, as far as I know, so their software freedom is present). But the service requires the user run non-free software (Gmail Javascript) to access Gmail via the web.
The connection between the user and Google is encrypted ("secure" in the parlance) but this "secure connection" won't address that Google spies on its users, Google is a known US government spying "partner" (three cheers for Ed Snowden!), that any email could be conveyed to others via insecure means, and that email (as I write this) is most likely in plaintext. We use GNU Privacy Guard to address these issues by cryptographically signing and encrypting email. We can't use proprietary software to do this job instead because proprietary encryption is always untrustworthy, and proprietary software could log keystrokes, capture screenshots, and do other things to spy on us. But right now cryptographically signed & encrypted email is quite unpopular.
It would be really interesting to hear perspectives people have about how to introduce threats without appearing to be negative. For example, what narrative do we need to use to give proprietary software the same urgency as a burning kitchen or contaminated water?
You give them the facts, you denounce the attempt at distraction from "being negative" and you proceed with intelligent, adult, fact-based assertions and clearly conveying consequences. Nobody solves ugly problems like those you mention by prioritizing 'avoiding negative discussion'.
Hi J.B.,
I have to wonder: if FSFE is seriously getting caught up in framing debates like this, is FSFE an open source advocacy group or a free software advocacy group?
We're neither, and both. We do prefer to speak of free software, and try to be consistent in this. We do not, however, consider there to be any difference between the two terms. The tension we see is not between free software and open source but between free and open source proponents and these who say free or open source but mean something less.
Jonas Öberg Free Software Foundation Europe | jonas@fsfe.org Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
Hi,
"J.B. Nicholson" jbn@forestfield.org writes:
Trying to manage other people's feelings, or framing issues in terms of "negative" (and presumably "positive") language is a wasteful distraction that doesn't address substantive issues we can solve with software freedom.
I think figuring out how people might react to our message is an integral part of what we do. Software freedom is the goal of course, not framing the message, but if we cannot get the message across, we will not reach our goal. While we cannot "manage" someone's feelings, we may be able to anticipate them. Essentially, that's what PR/marketing is about.
I have to wonder: if FSFE is seriously getting caught up in framing debates like this, is FSFE an open source advocacy group or a free software advocacy group?
I think this is going a bit too far. This discussion is run on a list maintained by the FSFE, but the discussion itself does not necessarily represent all members of the FSFE GA. It is a community discussion about a topic that Daniel thought was interesting and I agree with him. That does not mean it is the main thing the FSFE is involved in.
We can explain that this muddles multiple separate issues together.
I agree. Separating issues is immensely important in discussions and we should do that when explaining issues involving software freedom.
You give them the facts, you denounce the attempt at distraction from "being negative" and you proceed with intelligent, adult, fact-based assertions and clearly conveying consequences. Nobody solves ugly problems like those you mention by prioritizing 'avoiding negative discussion'.
There are people who respond well to arguments based on logic and people who respond better to more emotional arguments. For the latter group, it might work better to point out issues of fairness for example (perhaps not the best example because I belong to the former group). Shouldn't we make an effort to address both groups?
Happy hacking! Florian
Hi Daniel,
I think the question of negative campaigning is very interesting. I would say that while pointing out flaws technically falls in the realm of negative campaigning, it is far from what I mostly associate with the term: Attack ads in American elections. Those are vicious and often contain false information about opponents. That is something I would definitely want to stay away from. :-)
The examples you listed are essentially providing truthful information and that is something we need to do, of course. I would just try to use hyperbole sparingly because it often distorts arguments and if used too often, it can weaken our arguments. So I would be against calling Facebook a "NSA approved surveillance device" outside of this list (or other places where people usually know what I mean with something like that), but I would point out that the NSA can access information stored on that platform.
Happy hacking! Florian
Hi,
I've already sent a lengthy mail detailing my position w.r.t. negative campaigning, but I would like to add this point:
Not every "negative" message is negative campaigning.
On Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2017 12:14:49 CEST Daniel Pocock wrote:
If I was in somebody's house and I saw their kitchen had caught fire, should I avoid talking about it because it is a negative topic and they might feel bad? Or should I warn somebody?
This example is very contrived, but: of course you tell someone. You want them to make an informed choice („Hmmm… if my kitchen's on fire I better call 0118 999 88199 9119 725 3“[1])
What about a hidden risk that most people can't see, for example, if you were an official who knew about the contamination[1] in the water in Flint, Michigan, should you keep your mouth shut? Or would people thank you for sharing negative information?
Fulfilling your duty as an elected official, or as a public servant is not negative campaigning. „There are dangerous levels of toxic chemicals in the water. Don't drink it.“ is putting out facts. Using these facts for personal gain to paint somebody in a bad light is negative campaigning.
I have to admit, though, that in practice telling both apart can be tricky or impossible.
Cheers, Johannes
[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_IT_Crowd#Calamity_Jen_.5B1.2.5D
Interesting topic you all brought up! :)
As far as I can see it, despite having negative informations about some products (I'm ignoring brands and for-profit organization names because of [[https://k7r.eu/there-is-no-free-software-company-but/]] and [[https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/libreplanet-2016-the-last-ligh...]]), the negative information in various FSF and sister-organizations' campaigns are based on facts. Most of the facts can be seen at [[https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/]] (although the articles referenced in each subpage might not be universally shareable, they do serve as good basis for us to form arguments againts each product). Morever, we already know issues with:
- The majority of websites available as of today (due to non-free JavaScript being served to the guest/visitor/client, or not being clearly marked-up as free/libre, see [[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html]]).
- Products from Sony :: See the previous references, and DefectiveByDesign.
- Products from Netflix :: Id.
- Products from Amazon :: Id.
- Products from Medtronic (and similar) :: See [[http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-medical-devices.pd...]] and [[http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2015.51009]].
- Products from Volkswagen :: See the GNU.org page on proprietary software.
- Computers for voting :: Although this is the only case in which we must promote against the use of software (for registration of the votes, not for counting if the counting is also attested against human-made count), according to [[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-digital-society.html#voting]], see the following example of a non-(free/libre) software in the voting system in Brazil: [[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-digital-society.html#voting]].
Of special interest might be the section about appliances that is present in the GNU.org page about proprietary software.
However, the GNU.org page on proprietary software also offers a double-sided knife against us if for some unknown reason, our messages switch from "in favor of freedom" to "in favor of security", at which point we run the risk of appealing too much for security and failing to raise awareness of the lack of the essential freedoms of the software. Software freedom is a requirement for security and privacy, but the inverse isn't true.
Now, you might be asking: "If we don't appeal to the lack of security first, how do we reach out and make the explanation easier?". For this, answer, I find the explanation given by Stallman in the beginning of his speeches to be most suitable to let people know what we are talking about at first contact.
The explanation goes similar to this: computers have the single job of getting the next instruction and doing what it says, without questioning if that's the right thing to do. With free/libre software, the user has the possibility of controlling the software either individually (if he wants to study it and does know how to do the changes), or collectively (through sharing, selling, community engagement, hiring/contracts, customization, and so on). Now, with non-(free/libre) software, the software is controlled by the proprietor. It's always one or another. And since in the non-(free/libre) case the essential freedoms are absent, then society must always assume the worst: insecurity, loss of privacy, loss of independence, and so on.
After this explanation of how software is used by computers and what are the essential freedoms, then I usually give a fictional example of some non-tech person hiring someone else to fix a problem in the free/libre software they have, and say that this results in an improved version of the software which both the non-tech and the hired person can either share or sell.
After the fictional example, I give real examples of how non-(free/libre) software impacts society.
About Debian: I know it was only an example, but I must say that Debian is also non-(free/libre). If you want to discuss this further, please start a topic anew. :)
Sorry, the link to De Rezende's article on voting system in Brazil is absent, it is this one: [[http://www.cic.unb.br/~rezende/trabs/entrevistaINFO2.html]].
On 07/29/2017 05:08 PM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
Sorry, the link to De Rezende's article on voting system in Brazil is absent, it is this one: [[http://www.cic.unb.br/~rezende/trabs/entrevistaINFO2.html]].
maybe a stupid question, but is there an English version available?
Regards,
Thomas
After thinking more about it, I have the feeling than instead of discussing about negative vs positive campaigning it might be better to focus on thinking about the characteristics of effective campaigning.
On that topic, I can strongly recommend the book "Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World Book by Tina Rosenberg".
Regards, Matthias