Hey all,
irregardless of the split in our community between privacy pragmatists and privacy absolutists, I think we should take note of this step Mozilla has taken, as I believe FSFE still has a Facebook page (last active on September 21st as far as I can ascertain).
Dear global community we’ve had the opportunity to interact with over the past several years here:
We’re taking a break from Facebook.
At Mozilla we champion platforms and technologies that are good for the web and good for the people that use it. We stand up for transparency and user control because they make the web healthier for us all.
That’s why we are pressing pause on any Facebook activity. Mark Zuckerberg has just promised to improve Facebook’s settings and make them more protective, which is a start! Please do that! But we can’t help but think we’ve heard it before, so we’re still going to wait and see what materializes before we resume spending our ad dollars or time here.
IN THE MEANTIME: If you need support for Firefox or want to tweet at us, you can find us here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/ and https://twitter.com/mozilla
(Non-tracked link to the source: https://web.archive.org/web/20180323091845/https://de-de.facebook.com/mozill...)
What do you guys think?
Best regards,
Jonke
Hi
How about joining Diaspora, the community would really like more big players like Mozilla on board so that you can engage in the community and that also encourags others to come to Diaspora.
https://diasporafoundation.org/
https://joindiaspora.com/i/29e3c17d2ef2%C2%A0%C2%A0 - join link for the joindiaspora pod, but you can join other pods or set your own up.
welcome to join
Interestingly since the news about FB / CA daspora and I think other alternatives appear to have seen an increase in new members or certainly people looking for alternatives.
Paul
On 23/03/18 09:20, Jonke Suhr wrote:
Hey all,
irregardless of the split in our community between privacy pragmatists and privacy absolutists, I think we should take note of this step Mozilla has taken, as I believe FSFE still has a Facebook page (last active on September 21st as far as I can ascertain).
Dear global community we’ve had the opportunity to interact with over the past several years here:
We’re taking a break from Facebook.
At Mozilla we champion platforms and technologies that are good for the web and good for the people that use it. We stand up for transparency and user control because they make the web healthier for us all.
That’s why we are pressing pause on any Facebook activity. Mark Zuckerberg has just promised to improve Facebook’s settings and make them more protective, which is a start! Please do that! But we can’t help but think we’ve heard it before, so we’re still going to wait and see what materializes before we resume spending our ad dollars or time here.
IN THE MEANTIME: If you need support for Firefox or want to tweet at us, you can find us here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/ and https://twitter.com/mozilla
(Non-tracked link to the source: https://web.archive.org/web/20180323091845/https://de-de.facebook.com/mozill...)
What do you guys think?
Best regards,
Jonke _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Am 23.03.2018 um 10:30 schrieb psutton:
How about joining Diaspora, the community would really like more big players like Mozilla on board so that you can engage in the community and that also encourags others to come to Diaspora.
FSFE is already on Diaspora, I recommend everyone to follow :)
On 23/03/18 09:49, Jonke Suhr wrote:
Am 23.03.2018 um 10:30 schrieb psutton:
How about joining Diaspora, the community would really like more big players like Mozilla on board so that you can engage in the community and that also encourags others to come to Diaspora.
FSFE is already on Diaspora, I recommend everyone to follow :)
Sorry i was suggesting Mozilla join.
Paul
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
The problem with Facebook is that it's the worst bar in town and the bouncers are horrible, but it's also the only one where you can find everyone.
So the question is its tactical usefulness for outreach versus its awfulness.
On 23 March 2018 at 09:20, Jonke Suhr suhrj@fsfe.org wrote:
Hey all,
irregardless of the split in our community between privacy pragmatists and privacy absolutists, I think we should take note of this step Mozilla has taken, as I believe FSFE still has a Facebook page (last active on September 21st as far as I can ascertain).
Dear global community we’ve had the opportunity to interact with over the past several years here:
We’re taking a break from Facebook.
At Mozilla we champion platforms and technologies that are good for the web and good for the people that use it. We stand up for transparency and user control because they make the web healthier for us all.
That’s why we are pressing pause on any Facebook activity. Mark Zuckerberg has just promised to improve Facebook’s settings and make them more protective, which is a start! Please do that! But we can’t help but think we’ve heard it before, so we’re still going to wait and see what materializes before we resume spending our ad dollars or time here.
IN THE MEANTIME: If you need support for Firefox or want to tweet at us, you can find us here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/ and https://twitter.com/mozilla
(Non-tracked link to the source: https://web.archive.org/web/20180323091845/https://de-de.facebook.com/mozill...)
What do you guys think?
Best regards,
Jonke _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
To me it's a question of consistency: does FSFE not agree with FSF? RMS says "absolutely no to Facebook", so then?
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 3:32 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with Facebook is that it's the worst bar in town and the bouncers are horrible, but it's also the only one where you can find everyone.
So the question is its tactical usefulness for outreach versus its awfulness.
On 23 March 2018 at 09:20, Jonke Suhr suhrj@fsfe.org wrote:
Hey all,
irregardless of the split in our community between privacy pragmatists and privacy absolutists, I think we should take note of this step Mozilla has taken, as I believe FSFE still has a Facebook page (last active on September 21st as far as I can ascertain).
Dear global community we’ve had the opportunity to interact with over
the past several years here:
We’re taking a break from Facebook.
At Mozilla we champion platforms and technologies that are good for the
web and good for the people that use it.
We stand up for transparency and user control because they make the web
healthier for us all.
That’s why we are pressing pause on any Facebook activity. Mark
Zuckerberg has just promised to improve Facebook’s settings and make them more protective, which is a start! Please do that! But we can’t help but think we’ve heard it before, so we’re still going to wait and see what materializes before we resume spending our ad dollars or time here.
IN THE MEANTIME: If you need support for Firefox or want to tweet at us, you can find us
here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/
(Non-tracked link to the source: https://web.archive.org/web/20180323091845/https://de-de.
facebook.com/mozilla/posts/10156139176287381)
What do you guys think?
Best regards,
Jonke _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Sure but uf you're using FB to spread the word on privacy and freesoftware, you probably get mocked or trolled and when this sort of thing breaks the news headlines, you can smugly say 'told you so'
I have said this before sometimes I think you need to join the enemy in order to spread your view point. You don't even need to engate with people that much just have regular posts to FB people will follow youk and those of us who understand the argument will use the other usual methods to engage.
Paul On 23/03/18 09:38, C. Cossé wrote:
To me it's a question of consistency: does FSFE not agree with FSF? RMS says "absolutely no to Facebook", so then?
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 3:32 AM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com mailto:dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem with Facebook is that it's the worst bar in town and the bouncers are horrible, but it's also the only one where you can find everyone. So the question is its tactical usefulness for outreach versus its awfulness. On 23 March 2018 at 09:20, Jonke Suhr <suhrj@fsfe.org <mailto:suhrj@fsfe.org>> wrote: > Hey all, > > irregardless of the split in our community between privacy pragmatists > and privacy absolutists, I think we should take note of this step > Mozilla has taken, as I believe FSFE still has a Facebook page (last > active on September 21st as far as I can ascertain). > >> Dear global community we’ve had the opportunity to interact with over the past several years here: >> >> We’re taking a break from Facebook. >> >> At Mozilla we champion platforms and technologies that are good for the web and good for the people that use it. >> We stand up for transparency and user control because they make the web healthier for us all. >> >> That’s why we are pressing pause on any Facebook activity. Mark Zuckerberg has just promised to improve Facebook’s settings and make them more protective, which is a start! Please do that! But we can’t help but think we’ve heard it before, so we’re still going to wait and see what materializes before we resume spending our ad dollars or time here. >> >> IN THE MEANTIME: >> If you need support for Firefox or want to tweet at us, you can find us here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/ <https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/> >> and https://twitter.com/mozilla > > (Non-tracked link to the source: > https://web.archive.org/web/20180323091845/https://de-de.facebook.com/mozilla/posts/10156139176287381 <https://web.archive.org/web/20180323091845/https://de-de.facebook.com/mozilla/posts/10156139176287381>) > > What do you guys think? > > Best regards, > > Jonke > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org <mailto:Discussion@lists.fsfe.org> > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion <https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion> > > This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All > participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: > https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct <https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct> _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org <mailto:Discussion@lists.fsfe.org> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion <https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct <https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct>
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
C. Cossé wrote:
To me it's a question of consistency: does FSFE not agree with FSF? RMS says "absolutely no to Facebook", so then?
I asked about a similar bit of FSFE policy on 2017-07-26 and is archived https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-July/011731.html
As you can see the responses I received indicated a remarkable departure from what Stallman (RMS) has said about open source's development methodology and its practical consequences. He's quite clear to point out in his talks and writings:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
that the two are radically different when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software. You can still come across articles in the tech press that play out the very difference Stallman described so many years ago.
I bring this up in order to back up the point that, no, apparently the FSFE doesn't agree with the FSF on all points.
Perhaps now that it's in vogue to get rid of one's Facebook account (if one had such an account to begin with), FSFE will consider getting rid of theirs and explain why. It seems eminently sensible to me to join with the FSF's "not F'd" view per https://www.fsf.org/facebook.
In all seriousness, I personally don't give a fuck about FSF/E's stance on FB.
I've been on FB about 10x today. It allows me to connect with the people I love, like and value. They don't give 2 F's about FSF values and it's not for me to proselytize to them. That has nothing to do with my relationships. I talk to my girlfriend, my family, my colleagues ... if anyone in their right mind seriously believes that abandoning FB for the reasons that FSF/E suggests, well, they are living in a complete and total fantasy. J. D. Nicholson, I like you and the way you think and appreciate that you are the only one who responded to my comment, which I made only to point out the hypocrisy of it all. I'd say "friend me on FB" but I guess you're not "in". That's cool. I still like you. Yes, after some reflection I just cannot agree with any of this nonsense. FB enables people to connect in an ever-disconnected world. Rather than boycott it altogether how about campaigning to change it according to FSF/E values? I don't believe the Mark Z. is part of the "Deep State" trying to undermine good in order to promote "evil". C'mon and get real. FB let's me communicate with fellow pilots, train enthusiasts, music enthusiasts, NORD keyboard players, my first grade classmates, people I've met while traveling around the world, interesting projects that I would otherwise not be aware of, news that isn't covered by mainstream media, hardships experienced by loved ones, the list goes on. How much change to FB code/policy would it take to align with FSF/E "values"? That's the easiest solution to the whole dilema, not to attempt to get the world to switch-over to whatever-the-f*ck obscure platform FSF/E deems "acceptable". I'm not an enemy -- I believe in FSF for the most part, but this is absurd. It's contra-reality. What are you so afraid of? Get of the internet if you're that neurotic about privacy. Huh? Go ahead and ban me. I'm on your side, to a degree, but a practical degree. God bless RMS and all his intentions, but you've lost the world by virtue of the FSF cornerstone tenet that closed source is immoral. The universe doesn't recognize software freedom as either moral or immoral. It's irrelevant in terms of morality. You lose 99.9% of the world with that assertion.
Should I press the "send" button and own the above? Hell yes. C&C welcome. Yours Truly, Charles Cosse.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:20 PM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
C. Cossé wrote:
To me it's a question of consistency: does FSFE not agree with FSF? RMS says "absolutely no to Facebook", so then?
I asked about a similar bit of FSFE policy on 2017-07-26 and is archived https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-July/011731.html
As you can see the responses I received indicated a remarkable departure from what Stallman (RMS) has said about open source's development methodology and its practical consequences. He's quite clear to point out in his talks and writings:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
that the two are radically different when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software. You can still come across articles in the tech press that play out the very difference Stallman described so many years ago.
I bring this up in order to back up the point that, no, apparently the FSFE doesn't agree with the FSF on all points.
Perhaps now that it's in vogue to get rid of one's Facebook account (if one had such an account to begin with), FSFE will consider getting rid of theirs and explain why. It seems eminently sensible to me to join with the FSF's "not F'd" view per https://www.fsf.org/facebook. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Hi Charles,
we know each other from outside this list, through your work on educational free softwares (I'm from the OLPC France crew).
I think it's perfectly fine to be friend (like in "true friend") with people having different values. I'd even go further and say it would be insane to be surrounded by like-minded people...that's why we have this discussion: lists of people who don't necessarily value the same priorities and who don't share the same point of view.
That said, I totally disagree with you, in a friendly manner :)
(1) I don't use Facebook and I'M FINE. Like many others. I do have friends, I chat online, I socialize, I read the news, I'm not an obscure nerd, lost in his paraverse.
(2) Facebook is a teenager in the Internet history. Not a baby, but not an adult. Some people like to educate raging teenagers, some prefer to avoid them. I avoid FB as I don't like to give to much attention to systems that do things in a way I 100% disapprove.
(3) I believe the strategy of "changing FB from FB" is a myth. Can anyone give an example of something she did on FB that resulted in a change in Facebook's policy? When people managed to change Facebook, it was not because their were on Facebook, but because they spent time and money *outside FB* to make them heard.
So I'm fine with my friends being on FB but (1) I don't let them say "It's the only way to stay connected to your classmates", (2) I urge them to remember Myspace and the likes and to remember behemoths can die, and (3) I challenge their "trojan horse strategy" illusion.
Now, as a group of free software hacktivists, I do think we have a responsability to pave the way and to show that we can make a better internet but not using things we disapprove.
We can more effectively change Facebook by not using it.
Best,
(1) I don't use Facebook and I'M FINE. Like many others. I do have friends, I chat online, I socialize, I read the news, I'm not an obscure nerd, lost in his paraverse.
+1
(3) I believe the strategy of "changing FB from FB" is a myth. Can anyone give an example of something she did on FB that resulted in a change in Facebook's policy? When people managed to change Facebook, it was not because their were on Facebook, but because they spent time and money *outside FB* to make them heard.
+1
So I'm fine with my friends being on FB but (1) I don't let them say "It's the only way to stay connected to your classmates", (2) I urge them to remember Myspace and the likes and to remember behemoths can die, and (3) I challenge their "trojan horse strategy" illusion.
+1
Now, as a group of free software hacktivists, I do think we have a responsability to pave the way and to show that we can make a better internet but not using things we disapprove.
We can more effectively change Facebook by not using it.
+1
On Saturday 24. March 2018 06.22.41 C. Cossé wrote:
FB enables people to connect in an ever-disconnected world.
Wait a moment! The world is more connected than ever, technologically. Isn't that one of the problems here? "Everyone" is on Facebook, but they are all in their own little bubble or silo, subject to a game of divide and rule.
(I'm not saying that it isn't convenient to be in a silo communicating with your friends and family, but what I increasingly noticed on LinkedIn before I quit that as well, was that I was being "messaged" more and more by "influencers". I found that rather offensive, and I would object to other people being treated the same way, too.)
Rather than boycott it altogether how about campaigning to change it according to FSF/E values?
What leverage does the FSF or FSFE have over Facebook? The overriding motivation for anything Facebook does involves making colossal sums of money by selling advertising opportunities to organisations exploiting the company's knowledge of its users' behaviour (and of others who happen to interact with its ubiquitous online tracking assets).
The people campaigning to "delete Facebook" understand this very well because the language of money is practically the only language Facebook's executives understand. For once, we are on the same page as those people who continually remind us, somewhat inaccurately, that the only responsibility a company has is to its greedy shareholders who want maximum returns on their investments.
How much change to FB code/policy would it take to align with FSF/E "values"?
The FSF and FSFE are primarily concerned with software freedom, but software freedom is beneficial in upholding values like transparency and end-user control over their technology, which itself feeds into matters of privacy and sustainability.
Facebook already uses and contributes to Free Software, but you cannot "download Facebook" and run it yourself. Even if various projects used by Facebook were relicensed under the AGPL, there would still be infrastructure that is proprietary. At this point, the FSF and FSFE can only "campaign" for a change with no real leverage.
It may get to the point where government regulation demands transparency around the infrastructure, the "algorithms", and so on. Given how large companies manage to evade regulatory measures by "forgetting" to comply with them - Facebook is already subject to some measures, I believe - I don't think this will ever provide a satisfactory solution.
But in terms of software freedom, would you even want to have an entire Facebook implementation you could deploy yourself, anyway? Is it desirable when considering those peripheral values to try and gather large numbers of people into the same solution where the same hazards around privacy and surveillance will simply present themselves again?
That's the easiest solution to the whole dilema, not to attempt to get the world to switch-over to whatever-the-f*ck obscure platform FSF/E deems "acceptable".
You are correct in that it generally isn't about picking specific solutions as winners because this usually just transfers the problem to something else. But in instances such as this, the FSF and FSFE should uphold notions of interoperability and choice. The only easy solutions here are pretend solutions that just deny that the concentration of power and influence is harmful and that there is nothing more to see in this ongoing controversy.
The FSF and FSFE need to promote solutions that allow people to communicate with each other. Again, that is a topic for another message because it demands that we consider constructive strategies for achieving this, which is a separate thing from highlighting the perils of Facebook and similar platforms.
It's contra-reality. What are you so afraid of?
I sincerely suggest you switch back to the more socially-responsible parts of the "mainstream media" to find a long list of things that are worrying about the effect of Facebook and similar data aggregation platforms on society and democracy.
Paul
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:22:41PM -0600, C. Cossé wrote:
FB enables people to connect in an ever-disconnected world.
So do mailing lists, blogs, chat systems, other social networks like GNUSocial, Mastodon, Minds, Hubzilla, Friendica, ...
The difference is the cost of each of them.
Cost of FB is that: - What you publish can only be read using FB software (so you end up pushing your friends to join it) - What you read using FB software is decided by FB (lots of advertisement)
Cost of alternatives: - Some of them are harder to use (not mailing lists?) - Your friends are all on FB ...
--strk;
I do apologize to everyone for use of the "f" word. I have feared to open my own email for the last 16 hours expecting the worst. It was an all-or-nothing post, i.e. either complete with raw emotion, as initially written, or no post at all. Total respect to everyone, their opinions and the work of the FSF/E.
Today I tried to access Google Groups from an Android tablet that was not logged-in to Google. It would absolutely not allow me to see anything but the login screen. That was most irritating, and unnecessary. They can track me just from my ip that doesn't change, so requiring me to login is just a convenience for their own advert software or something. I guess so they don't accidentally try to sell me toys b/c my kids come from the same ip or something. Bastien, why does OLPC participate in GSoC when Google violates your values? OT: Did you know that to apply to Google for a job you must send a paper application? I don't undersatnd that.
I wasn't suggesting to change FB from the inside Trojan Horse-style, just numerically that changing 1 company would be easier, albeit all-but-impossible, than changing millions of individual users.
Another FSFE member who wishes to remain anonymous, I guess, did send me the following:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:28 AM, somebody wrote:
Should I press the "send" button and own the above? Hell yes.
And I'm very happy yoou did. Thanks a lot! I will support you if needed, both in public and within fsfe's GA.
Respect to all, -Charlie
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:22 PM, C. Cossé ccosse@gmail.com wrote:
In all seriousness, I personally don't give a fuck about FSF/E's stance on FB.
I've been on FB about 10x today. It allows me to connect with the people I love, like and value. They don't give 2 F's about FSF values and it's not for me to proselytize to them. That has nothing to do with my relationships. I talk to my girlfriend, my family, my colleagues ... if anyone in their right mind seriously believes that abandoning FB for the reasons that FSF/E suggests, well, they are living in a complete and total fantasy. J. D. Nicholson, I like you and the way you think and appreciate that you are the only one who responded to my comment, which I made only to point out the hypocrisy of it all. I'd say "friend me on FB" but I guess you're not "in". That's cool. I still like you. Yes, after some reflection I just cannot agree with any of this nonsense. FB enables people to connect in an ever-disconnected world. Rather than boycott it altogether how about campaigning to change it according to FSF/E values? I don't believe the Mark Z. is part of the "Deep State" trying to undermine good in order to promote "evil". C'mon and get real. FB let's me communicate with fellow pilots, train enthusiasts, music enthusiasts, NORD keyboard players, my first grade classmates, people I've met while traveling around the world, interesting projects that I would otherwise not be aware of, news that isn't covered by mainstream media, hardships experienced by loved ones, the list goes on. How much change to FB code/policy would it take to align with FSF/E "values"? That's the easiest solution to the whole dilema, not to attempt to get the world to switch-over to whatever-the-f*ck obscure platform FSF/E deems "acceptable". I'm not an enemy -- I believe in FSF for the most part, but this is absurd. It's contra-reality. What are you so afraid of? Get of the internet if you're that neurotic about privacy. Huh? Go ahead and ban me. I'm on your side, to a degree, but a practical degree. God bless RMS and all his intentions, but you've lost the world by virtue of the FSF cornerstone tenet that closed source is immoral. The universe doesn't recognize software freedom as either moral or immoral. It's irrelevant in terms of morality. You lose 99.9% of the world with that assertion.
Should I press the "send" button and own the above? Hell yes. C&C welcome. Yours Truly, Charles Cosse.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:20 PM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
C. Cossé wrote:
To me it's a question of consistency: does FSFE not agree with FSF? RMS says "absolutely no to Facebook", so then?
I asked about a similar bit of FSFE policy on 2017-07-26 and is archived https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-July/011731.html
As you can see the responses I received indicated a remarkable departure from what Stallman (RMS) has said about open source's development methodology and its practical consequences. He's quite clear to point out in his talks and writings:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
that the two are radically different when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software. You can still come across articles in the tech press that play out the very difference Stallman described so many years ago.
I bring this up in order to back up the point that, no, apparently the FSFE doesn't agree with the FSF on all points.
Perhaps now that it's in vogue to get rid of one's Facebook account (if one had such an account to begin with), FSFE will consider getting rid of theirs and explain why. It seems eminently sensible to me to join with the FSF's "not F'd" view per https://www.fsf.org/facebook. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Hi Charles,
C. Cossé ccosse@gmail.com writes:
Bastien, why does OLPC participate in GSoC when Google violates your values?
Just to be precise: I'm not from OLPC, I'm from OLPC France, an independant grassroots. Also OLPC did not participate to GSoC, Sugar Labs (https://sugarlabs.org) does.
I guess Sugar Labs partipates to the GSoC for the same reasons the Free Software Foundation does it through the various GNU projects: it's a way to write and promote free software that comes with no strings attached.
But we're comparing apples and oranges here...
My whole view on the pragmatists vs purists debate (which I've been involved in since ~20 years) is this: it's okay to be a "pragmatist" as long as you don't lose track of your main goal. The pragmatist's stance should be transitory and used in a pragmatist way itself... not defended for itself.
I mean, we're all torn by inconsistencies: having a bank account from a company doing it The Wrong Way, buying medicines from companies who just want to make money instead of healing people, eating stuff we shouldn't really eat, etc.
Those inconsistencies should not prevent us from defending something else, so I'm glad there are FB users in the free software movement!
But the question is: should a free software INSTITUTION use FB?
While it may be difficult to leave Facebook at the individual level, I'm sure it is not difficult at all to leave Facebook when you're an institution.
What will FB do: show you picture of the Stallman crying because you leave FB?
Hi Bastien,
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 2:27 AM, bzg@gnu.org wrote:
I guess Sugar Labs partipates to the GSoC for the same reasons the Free Software Foundation does it through the various GNU projects: it's a way to write and promote free software that comes with no strings attached.
If Facebook is "guilty" of anything, then Google is even guiltier. Everything objected to about FB applies to both. FSF/E would not condone GNU projects' participation in an "FBSoC", yet GNU projects participate in GSoC. I believe that's the classic definition of a double standard.
But the question is: should a free software INSTITUTION use FB?
The original question was that, but https://www.fsf.org/facebook and other docs were also mentioned above, and contain plenty of references to "me" the individual, as well as "us" the institution.
While it may be difficult to leave Facebook at the individual level, I'm sure it is not difficult at all to leave Facebook when you're an institution.
What will FB do: show you picture of the Stallman crying because you leave FB?
That had me LOLing :)
-Charlie
Charles:
I have feared to open my own email for the last 16 hours expecting the worst.
I know the feeling. And this is when getting complete silence back is almost as bad as getting. You end up thinking your message is being discarded as irrelevant.
That's why, sometimes, I write offlist to people. To thank the poster individually without boring the other subscribers with a pointless ack.
Another FSFE member who wishes to remain anonymous, I guess, did send me the following:
No, I didn't want to remain anonymous. I just didn't feel the need to post, having nothing new to add. Besides, I was travelling and couldn't follow developments soon enough.
But since I'm now posting, I also want to thank Matt Witts for his wise words in 665e43d4-9258-82c1-6cb1-208de7ec3e71@yuj.it, yesterday (https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2018-March/012320.html).
I go as far as repeating his core message:
The FSFE / FB thing is a classic case of personal choice elevated to moral imperative. Use FB/Don't use FB it's not relevant. [...] Your FS advocate on FB is not your enemy, the FS advocate who does not use FB is not your enemy. FB is not the enemy. Proprietory software is not an enemy, [...] we are not at war.
/alessandro
RMS says yadda yadda, so what?
You can advertise on Facebook, post events, etc. I would not recommend you to put any private data in there that you consider do not belong to the eyes of Facebook or NSA or whoever that you do not trust.
Ani
On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 03:38 -0600, C. Cossé wrote:
To me it's a question of consistency: does FSFE not agree with FSF? RMS says "absolutely no to Facebook", so then?
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 3:32 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with Facebook is that it's the worst bar in town and the bouncers are horrible, but it's also the only one where you can find everyone.
So the question is its tactical usefulness for outreach versus its awfulness.
On 23 March 2018 at 09:20, Jonke Suhr suhrj@fsfe.org wrote:
Hey all,
irregardless of the split in our community between privacy
pragmatists
and privacy absolutists, I think we should take note of this step Mozilla has taken, as I believe FSFE still has a Facebook page
(last
active on September 21st as far as I can ascertain).
Dear global community we’ve had the opportunity to interact with
over the past several years here:
We’re taking a break from Facebook.
At Mozilla we champion platforms and technologies that are good
for the web and good for the people that use it.
We stand up for transparency and user control because they make
the web healthier for us all.
That’s why we are pressing pause on any Facebook activity. Mark
Zuckerberg has just promised to improve Facebook’s settings and make them more protective, which is a start! Please do that! But we can’t help but think we’ve heard it before, so we’re still going to wait and see what materializes before we resume spending our ad dollars or time here.
IN THE MEANTIME: If you need support for Firefox or want to tweet at us, you can
find us here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/
(Non-tracked link to the source: https://web.archive.org/web/20180323091845/https://de-de.facebook
.com/mozilla/posts/10156139176287381)
What do you guys think?
Best regards,
Jonke _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
RMS says yadda yadda, so what?
You can advertise on Facebook, post events, etc. I would not recommend you to put any private data in there that you consider do not belong to the eyes of Facebook or NSA or whoever that you do not trust.
This is kind of problematic.
In organization management --- not specific to "business" ---, particularly involving descentralized organizations with different managers each, this creates communication noise or action inconsistency. Of course each continent has its own culture, but I fail to see in European culture where having accounts in such centralized non-standardized full-of-JS-or-non-free-JS social network sites is considered a must.
I think you have misunderstood sir. It's a usage of Facebook to have it do a job of spreading a message that you can get it to do without it managing to get anything from the broadcaster that it demands but the broadcaster holds fast on.
Could be not running non free JS, if that's the main concern. I believe only messenger requires non free JS?
No such thing as European culture and a must to have accounts, that's totally not it as far as I know my history of European culture.
Ani
On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 11:09 -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
RMS says yadda yadda, so what?
You can advertise on Facebook, post events, etc. I would not recommend you to put any private data in there that you consider do not belong to the eyes of Facebook or NSA or whoever that you do not trust.
This is kind of problematic.
In organization management --- not specific to "business" ---, particularly involving descentralized organizations with different managers each, this creates communication noise or action inconsistency. Of course each continent has its own culture, but I fail to see in European culture where having accounts in such centralized non-standardized full-of-JS-or-non-free-JS social network sites is considered a must.
Could be not running non free JS, if that's the main concern. I believe only messenger requires non free JS?
If one considers my recent amendment --- where we would be relying on "other people" (see amendment for the meaning of this specific invocation) --- then I agree, only we, free/libre software activists, wouldn't be running non-free JS. But all in all, for the average user, Facebook forces one to run non-free JS in all cases, even when viewing pages.
No such thing as European culture and a must to have accounts, that's totally not it as far as I know my history of European culture.
Thank you for clarifying that. :D
This is kind of problematic.
In organization management --- not specific to "business" ---, particularly involving descentralized organizations with different managers each, this creates communication noise or action inconsistency. Of course each continent has its own culture, but I fail to see in European culture where having accounts in such centralized non-standardized full-of-JS-or-non-free-JS social network sites is considered a must.
To make my point clear: although it's not acceptable in the long-term, I'm OK with other people ([1]) spreading the word about our actions in Facebook, I can't speak for the FSF, but I think even the FSF sees this as undesirable in long-term but acceptable when thinking about short-term visibility --- to know why I came to this consideration about FSF, open any news item in fsf.org, and click on the bold "Share on social networks" link that is in the bottom.
[1] "Other people" in this message means: people who are not free/libre software activists. These "other people" can also be only users of free/libre software, but they don't have to be.
Totally agree.... for instance, I am not on nor even been on facebook....
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote:
On 23/03/18 10:32, David Gerard wrote:
The problem with Facebook is that it's the worst bar in town and the bouncers are horrible, but it's also the only one where you can find everyone.
Please don't spread myths
You won't find everyone on facebook, that is a fact
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
My counter argument to the only 'place to find everyone' is to join Diaspora etc anyway, tell people know, you are on there, it lessens the argument small steps, that is all it generally takes. Once you are on these other networks people have a reason to join, and hopefully eventually move from the closed networks.
Paul
On 23/03/18 09:32, David Gerard wrote:
The problem with Facebook is that it's the worst bar in town and the bouncers are horrible, but it's also the only one where you can find everyone.
So the question is its tactical usefulness for outreach versus its awfulness.
On 23 March 2018 at 09:20, Jonke Suhr suhrj@fsfe.org wrote:
Hey all,
irregardless of the split in our community between privacy pragmatists and privacy absolutists, I think we should take note of this step Mozilla has taken, as I believe FSFE still has a Facebook page (last active on September 21st as far as I can ascertain).
Dear global community we’ve had the opportunity to interact with over the past several years here:
We’re taking a break from Facebook.
At Mozilla we champion platforms and technologies that are good for the web and good for the people that use it. We stand up for transparency and user control because they make the web healthier for us all.
That’s why we are pressing pause on any Facebook activity. Mark Zuckerberg has just promised to improve Facebook’s settings and make them more protective, which is a start! Please do that! But we can’t help but think we’ve heard it before, so we’re still going to wait and see what materializes before we resume spending our ad dollars or time here.
IN THE MEANTIME: If you need support for Firefox or want to tweet at us, you can find us here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/ and https://twitter.com/mozilla
(Non-tracked link to the source: https://web.archive.org/web/20180323091845/https://de-de.facebook.com/mozill...)
What do you guys think?
Best regards,
Jonke _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com writes:
The problem with Facebook is that it's the worst bar in town and the bouncers are horrible, but it's also the only one where you can find everyone.
It is also the only bar where bartenders track your lives to make sure you get completely drunk and stay there forever.
Or like the Eagles said about Hotel California
'you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave,'
try and leave facebook and it nags you and you're made to feel guilty you have left.
Paul On 23/03/18 10:07, Bastien Guerry wrote:
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com writes:
The problem with Facebook is that it's the worst bar in town and the bouncers are horrible, but it's also the only one where you can find everyone.
It is also the only bar where bartenders track your lives to make sure you get completely drunk and stay there forever.
On Friday 23. March 2018 11.12.14 psutton wrote:
try and leave facebook and it nags you and you're made to feel guilty you have left.
Yes, one "farewell page" I have seen tries to make you feel like you're betraying your friends by abandoning them. To be fair, you really would be doing them a favour taking them with you.
Really, this kind of thing is part and parcel of the despicable psychological manipulation that Facebook and their kind employ. Despite former employees of Facebook and other companies publicly expressing their regret and disgust at their former employers and even at their own roles during their employment, many people still seem to find it hard to believe that they are being exploited and manipulated themselves.
But again, these are precisely the traits that those indulging in predatory behaviour rely upon to continue their activities: people don't want to be told that they have been tricked or are addicted to something. I am sure someone who has a background in this field can list hundreds of studies and papers on such topics.
Individuals might be "on Facebook" out of convenience, perhaps due to peer pressure. We should help them find alternatives, and that will have to be the subject of another message.
Organisations have more responsibility, however. Most of them are only using Facebook to promote themselves, FSFE included, and this merely enables the perpetrators of these misdeeds and crimes because it draws people in thinking that they can (and should) do all their online business via such sites, and that if the likes of FSFE use Facebook "then it can't be as bad as people say".
Quite why Mozilla didn't "take a break" from Facebook when the Snowden revelations surfaced is another matter, but it is easy to get conditioned to accept whatever the "new normal" happens to be, I suppose.
Paul
# Paul Boddie [2018-03-23 14:02 +0100]:
Facebook to promote themselves, FSFE included, and this merely enables the perpetrators of these misdeeds and crimes because it draws people in thinking that they can (and should) do all their online business via such sites, and that if the likes of FSFE use Facebook "then it can't be as bad as people say".
You draw a too negative picture of the people who like us on Facebook I think. We are incredibly inactive on this platform, and people who like us there will already know us and be sensitive about FB usage. Mozilla has a much larger and diverse audience and a more active presence on Facebook I assume, and so their step makes much more sense.
That said, I think the only purpose the FSFE's FB page currently serves is that 1. the name is taken to prevent hoaxers from imitating an "official" page, and 2. for people to find us if they – for whatever crazy reason – try to search us on this platform. Certainly, deleting the page won't educate anyone on this platform therefore.
Facebook by no means is used as a primary or official communication channel. If you take a look at the FSFE's presence on GnuSocial or Diaspora you will see what our preferences are ;)
Best, Max
On Friday 23. March 2018 14.40.58 Max Mehl wrote:
That said, I think the only purpose the FSFE's FB page currently serves is that 1. the name is taken to prevent hoaxers from imitating an "official" page, and 2. for people to find us if they – for whatever crazy reason – try to search us on this platform. Certainly, deleting the page won't educate anyone on this platform therefore.
If the only reason is to hold the name, maybe this policy should be clearly stated and absolutely no interaction performed via Facebook.
However, I personally think that by even having a presence the organisation legitimises Facebook. One could compare it to a country having an embassy in a country it doesn't or shouldn't recognise, although there are things like unofficial embassies and cooperation between nations with regards to helping out citizens who decided (against all advice) to go to such places.
One thing I also wonder about is how the FSFE can prevent hoaxers when, like the domain name system but without even the limited transparency around that, people could probably just create presences like "TheRealFSFE", "OfficialFSFE", "FSFE_Official" and so on.
Also, what terms and conditions apply to the FSFE when having a presence on Facebook? If people "like" FSFE on Facebook, what effect does that have on those people's privacy?
Facebook by no means is used as a primary or official communication channel. If you take a look at the FSFE's presence on GnuSocial or Diaspora you will see what our preferences are ;)
The FSFE is also present on LinkedIn, as far as I remember, and I regard that service in a similarly negative way, in the sense that it is effectively a data-mining exercise for some division of Microsoft.
Paul
The FSFE is also present on LinkedIn, as far as I remember, and I regard that service in a similarly negative way, in the sense that it is effectively a data-mining exercise for some division of Microsoft.
Speaking of LinkedIn, I noticed that it doesn't federate also.
Morever, some months ago I saw somewhere that ActivityPub could also be used to function like a federated job employement network, so I assume that if this would be true, people who use an ActivityPub account could also apply to the job positions posted through ActivityPub.
Personally, I tend to avoid registering at thousands of websites, I like to do some exercise by walking or running to the job employement centers that the government maintains --- because these already have my "registry" anyways, my "worker card" --- or those in which I don't have to touch a web form nor an app in order to join the job opennings. In all cases I am also OK if I have to send an email, but only if I can do so using the standard email procedures, not some web form. It is true however that the country were I live (Brazil) seens to be neglecting my potential as a citizen who cares for the freedoms of the software that the very end/novice user uses.
As Stallman once said, we don't have to go to the street make faces in order to get a living, we can do other stuff not related to technology, and this is also a thing I'm doing, I'm picking up any open position which doesn't require prior experience.
irregardless of the split in our community between privacy pragmatists and privacy absolutists, I think we should take note of this step Mozilla has taken, as I believe FSFE still has a Facebook page (last active on September 21st as far as I can ascertain).
I would also like to note that the general problem in regards to social networks and technology is often caused by a break in "federation" or by players who don't federate from the start. For references see the bottom of the page in [1].
Back in 2015 I started to use Diaspora, but not spreading it still. In 2017 I read the JS Trap article in GNU.org, and since then I've been trying to find some time over my turbulent Bachelor's degree to submit "JS-liberating" patches to major projects such as Diaspora. Even in that year I did notice the absense on the formal W3C/RFC/whatever document that standardizes Diaspora's network --- yes, they do have that in *their* website, but not in some known standards body.
However, in the beginning of 2018 I became aware of Meltdown, Spectre and the problems these two cause to website guests/visitors/users ([2]), and was also informed of the W3C-recommend standard for social networks called ActivityPub, since then I left Diaspora, went to ActivityPub-compatible instance, and I'm still trying to find some free time to make patches so that ActivityPub-based websites work without client-side JavaScript, or so that they at least make their JS compliant with GNU LibreJS markup ([3]).
Finally, in regards to federation and standards, it would be a good idea to have laws that compel the players that deal with internet communications and social networks to keep following the federation standards strictly, since according to [4] --- which is mentioned in [1] --- just publishing the standards and considering the fact that the players follow these now, doesn't mean they will continue following in the future, since they might be doing embrace, extend and extinguish (EEE), which seems to be the case for XMPP non-compliants such as WhatsApp ([1]).
[1] https://libreplanet.org/wiki/XMPP.
[2] https://mikegerwitz.com/2018/01/Meltdown-Spectre-and-the-Web.
[3] I was made aware that there is an upcoming version of LibreJS that will make the markup much easier to respect/implement/follow, because it will deprecate some context sensitive stuff in order to favor only a single form of markup --- even for scripts which come from third-parties --- but optionally allowing interested JavaScript developers to easily propose additions to the default hash-based whitelist of LibreJS.
[4] https://downloads.softwarefreedom.org/2017/conference/0-keynote.webm. Under CC BY-SA 3.0 US, according to https://softwarefreedom.org/events/2017/conference/video/.
Jonke Suhr suhrj@fsfe.org ha scritto:
[...]
(Non-tracked link to the source: https://web.archive.org/web/20180323091845/https://de-de.facebook.com/mozill...)
What do you guys think?
Nice move, I'd appreciate FSFE explicitely "pausing" its Facebook activity. At the same time the Diaspora and Quitter pages could be suggested as alternatives. This "pause" might help some users in understanding that: 1) giving oneself's privacy away will probably deny privacy to one's friends; 2) everyone can be manipulated, one should apply some skepticism to stuff coming from "the internet" 3) there are better platforms out there. Awareness of 1) and 2) can improve society.
https://diasp.eu/u/fsfe https://quitter.no/fsfe
Another free social platform is https://movim.eu
Hi Jonke,
I can't help but feel this is a PR stunt from Mozilla. Facebook recently had a privacy scandal, but Facebook is the same it has always been. Asking them to reform their business is pointless because they make money tracking users, so they can't stop tracking them. Also, at the end of the message, Mozilla asks people to use Twitter instead and while Twitter does not ask for photos of users and names and such, it is still able to track users through the web. So in my opinion, Mozilla is not all that serious here.
On a sidenote, I think Facebook is a symptom of a privacy issue we as a society have, but one that is currently starting to fail. Not because people realized it tracks them, but because they are choosing to be tracked by someone else. A lot of young people do not use Facebook anymore, they use Snapchat and the likes and that is why Facebook had to buy Whatsapp - to stay relevant.
Regarding your implied question of whether the FSFE should have a Facebook account, my answer is still yes, under certain conditions. First of all, the FSFE is an organization, not a person (and no, corporations are also not people!), so being tracked has completely different implications. The FSFE as a legal entity is not entitled to privacy or any other human rights so our information is mostly public anyway (and should be). What we should not do is tell other people to sign up for Facebook. That is why it is important for us to always clearly state (on Facebook or whichever privacy-troubled platform) that we do not support the platform and that people should not sign up for it. That way, we make clear that our presence on the platform is not a stamp of approval. We also need to make sure there is never any content from us on those platforms before it is also on other platforms so people always have a privacy respecting source available.
If we meet those conditions, I think we can gain from being on platforms like Facebook because we can reach people that we would not reach otherwise and hopefully, in the process, they will become more aware of Facebook's privacy issues. I think we should have a voice of dissent on a platform we find problematic instead of leaving it to voices of approval. Or to put it another way: If you want to warn people about the dangers of X, you need to talk to people who use X (and X can be anything: non-free software, drugs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.).
I didn't arrive at this position lightly: I want the FSFE to be a beacon of freedom and privacy. I want the FSFE to always bahave in accordance with its principles. For a long time, that made me think we should not be on platforms like Facebook, but then I realized the different implications if we as an organization are on Facebook or we as a community: I think the former can be done in accordance with our principles, but not the latter.
Happy hacking! Florian
Thank you for your thoughtful replay, Florian :) I agree with your assessment of Mozilla's motives. Under the premises you described, I guess personally I'm fine with FSFE keeping the profile. I guess my point was, if FSFE wanted to delete (or "pause") their profile, now would have been a good opportunity (because we just found out about a massive data breach).
Am 23.03.2018 um 17:48 schrieb Florian Snow:
Hi Jonke,
I can't help but feel this is a PR stunt from Mozilla. Facebook recently had a privacy scandal, but Facebook is the same it has always been. Asking them to reform their business is pointless because they make money tracking users, so they can't stop tracking them. Also, at the end of the message, Mozilla asks people to use Twitter instead and while Twitter does not ask for photos of users and names and such, it is still able to track users through the web. So in my opinion, Mozilla is not all that serious here.
On a sidenote, I think Facebook is a symptom of a privacy issue we as a society have, but one that is currently starting to fail. Not because people realized it tracks them, but because they are choosing to be tracked by someone else. A lot of young people do not use Facebook anymore, they use Snapchat and the likes and that is why Facebook had to buy Whatsapp - to stay relevant.
Regarding your implied question of whether the FSFE should have a Facebook account, my answer is still yes, under certain conditions. First of all, the FSFE is an organization, not a person (and no, corporations are also not people!), so being tracked has completely different implications. The FSFE as a legal entity is not entitled to privacy or any other human rights so our information is mostly public anyway (and should be). What we should not do is tell other people to sign up for Facebook. That is why it is important for us to always clearly state (on Facebook or whichever privacy-troubled platform) that we do not support the platform and that people should not sign up for it. That way, we make clear that our presence on the platform is not a stamp of approval. We also need to make sure there is never any content from us on those platforms before it is also on other platforms so people always have a privacy respecting source available.
If we meet those conditions, I think we can gain from being on platforms like Facebook because we can reach people that we would not reach otherwise and hopefully, in the process, they will become more aware of Facebook's privacy issues. I think we should have a voice of dissent on a platform we find problematic instead of leaving it to voices of approval. Or to put it another way: If you want to warn people about the dangers of X, you need to talk to people who use X (and X can be anything: non-free software, drugs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.).
I didn't arrive at this position lightly: I want the FSFE to be a beacon of freedom and privacy. I want the FSFE to always bahave in accordance with its principles. For a long time, that made me think we should not be on platforms like Facebook, but then I realized the different implications if we as an organization are on Facebook or we as a community: I think the former can be done in accordance with our principles, but not the latter.
Happy hacking! Florian
Am 23.03.2018 um 17:48 schrieb Florian Snow: ...
On a sidenote, I think Facebook is a symptom of a privacy issue we as a society have, but one that is currently starting to fail. Not because people realized it tracks them, but because they are choosing to be tracked by someone else. A lot of young people do not use Facebook anymore, they use Snapchat and the likes and that is why Facebook had to buy Whatsapp - to stay relevant.
But Whatsapp belongs to Facebook as well! As does also Instagram.
Regarding your implied question of whether the FSFE should have a Facebook account, my answer is still yes, under certain conditions. First of all, the FSFE is an organization, not a person (and no, corporations are also not people!), so being tracked has completely different implications. ...
I think we are missing the point here. It is not only whether FB is free software or not, how well it tracks users or even only about FB.
The point is, it is about world supremacy or even domination! Maybe even the end of democracy as we know it! Firms like FB, G, A, etc. are taking over the world and while they may come and go, there is a real danger for mankind when one or more of these firms control not only media or money, but also physical things like automobiles, weapons and resources.
Therefore we should strive to use only public or at least quasi-public resources like IP, HTML, and email, or if unavoidable, avoid private market-leaders at all costs. And the cost (of not using* FB (still the market leader in "social media") for FSFE to me would seem small, but I don't know.
Theo Schmidt
*and to use is to support, as the primary "currency" is not money here.
On 04/04/18 09:56, Theo Schmidt wrote:
Am 23.03.2018 um 17:48 schrieb Florian Snow: ...
On a sidenote, I think Facebook is a symptom of a privacy issue we as a society have, but one that is currently starting to fail. Not because people realized it tracks them, but because they are choosing to be tracked by someone else. A lot of young people do not use Facebook anymore, they use Snapchat and the likes and that is why Facebook had to buy Whatsapp - to stay relevant.
But Whatsapp belongs to Facebook as well! As does also Instagram.
But didn't fb get in trouble, about the way data was shared between these sites, and told it can't do that. It is perhaps worth having a presence oj FB simply to highlight any action against them weather about privacy or even policy changes, so that people following are kept up to date, the more people read about these subjects the more they will hopefully engage and think about the issues. Court action, cases and rulings are important no matter how small they seem. FB are not going to highlight these things,k it is up to uses to force these issues to trending and the FSFE et al can do that.
FB has changed their policy as a result of what CA have been doing, but that should never end the matter we need to keep this in the public view, a little but like what the groups in the US campaigning for better gun controls and background checks, if you drop the topic, people forget it very quickly. If computer science is about questioning how something works, we need to get people asking questions, even to themselves about what are they sharing, do they need to share that etc.
Paul
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Hello,
Remember this thread? ;-)
On Friday, 23 March 2018 17:48:35 CEST Florian Snow wrote:
If we meet those conditions, I think we can gain from being on platforms like Facebook because we can reach people that we would not reach otherwise and hopefully, in the process, they will become more aware of Facebook's privacy issues.
Here's an interesting development I noticed just now:
"Norwegian Data Protection Authority choose not to use Facebook"
https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/2021/norwegian-data-protection-authority...
I mean, of course they won't, right? They're a data protection authority! But it is worth reading up a bit more about the decision. For instance:
"A data protection authority creating an account on such a platform may therefore seem somewhat contradictory. Nevertheless, the communication department believes the Authority should consider new channels of communication and new types of content suited for such channels, to participate and play a greater role in the public discourse. The idea is that these channels may contribute to effectively disseminate and host these types of content, generate increased traffic to the website and open up new arenas for debate and guidance."
https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/8561465062b04a6b904c8c3573a24687/ report-en_should-the-norwegian-dpa-create-a-page-on-facebook.pdf
Does that sound familiar? Now, here's part of the conclusion:
"In addition, we believe that a presence on Facebook and the company’s subsequent processing of personal data would have considerable impact on the Data Protection Authority’s reputation and ethical standards. We believe that the Data Protection Authority’s decision on whether or not to implement Facebook will be noticed, and it may have an impact on the use of the platform by other parties."
Going back to 2018...
I think we should have a voice of dissent on a platform we find problematic instead of leaving it to voices of approval. Or to put it another way: If you want to warn people about the dangers of X, you need to talk to people who use X (and X can be anything: non-free software, drugs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.).
Interestingly, this came up recently in another context:
"Facebook’s Blocking Decisions Are Deliberate – Including Their Censorship of Mastodon"
https://changelog.complete.org/archives/10303-facebooks-blocking-decisions-a...
Or, in other words, you can try and get your message across, but the platform will work against you relentlessly.
So, is it really worth the reputational damage being on Facebook?
Paul
Interesting remarks and helpful to the discussion. Happy to hear that the Norwegian Data Protection Authority came to that decision.
I just checked the FSFE's Facebook presence https://www.facebook.com/thefsfe/
The last message is a post linking to other platforms:
This site is inactive.
Apart from our press releases we regularly publish important news about our work and our campaigns. To ensure you receive them, you can subscribe to our newsletter: https://fsfe.org/news/newsletter
We are also active on Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@fsfe Twitter: https://twitter.com/fsfe PeerTube: https://peertube.social/video-channels/fsfe_videos YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC68ldbHwL_-5qzETqOaAMWQ
There are also many ways to engage and you will surely find a way that fits your interests and skills: https://fsfe.org/contribute/contribute.html
Happy hacking!
Regarding the last comment about Facebook using censorship to prevent users moving elsewhere, that is noteworthy and anti-competitive. The FSFE post with links to different platforms is still up, so I think that wouldn't matter for the FSFE.
When will it be time to remove the FSFE page? Or is it the FSFE's contribution to make Facebook feel like a ghost town?
Best, Nico
Hi,
I think the last few years showed that what once may have been a reasonable point of view (i.e. trying to be a voice of dissent) is not possible on a site that actively prevents their users from seeing those dissenting views.
When will it be time to remove the FSFE page? Or is it the FSFE's contribution to make Facebook feel like a ghost town?
I don't believe that Facebook will ever feel like a ghost town as long as there is no exodus of a massive scale. And even then, the algorithms will do their best to give the last remaining users an illusion of an active social network.
When will it be time to remove the FSFE page?
Given Facebooks analytics capabilities I assume that this question does not need much guesswork. How many views does the site get? Are there any user interactions?
If the FSFE feels that the numbers don't justify the possibly tarnishing effect of being on Facebook, we can delete the account and get a nice press release out of it...
Cheers, Johannes
On Friday, 24 September 2021 08:17:04 CEST Nico Rikken wrote:
Interesting remarks and helpful to the discussion. Happy to hear that the Norwegian Data Protection Authority came to that decision.
They aren't the only ones:
"Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board leaves Facebook" https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/2021/10/bioteknologiradet-forlater-facebook...
Again, the motivation is that since they cannot assess how Facebook uses the data gathered about users by the platform, they cannot assess compliance with GDPR and other regulations, and yet a public institution with a presence on Facebook has a degree of responsibility for the data processing that is taking place. Purely to minimise user exposure to this kind of surveillance, the conclusion is that the only credible action is to leave Facebook.
[FSFE's recommendations]
Apart from our press releases we regularly publish important news about our work and our campaigns. To ensure you receive them, you can subscribe to our newsletter: https://fsfe.org/news/newsletter
This is indeed the alternative now chosen by the public institution featured above. Of course, people will whine about such outcomes and tell everyone how e-mail is "dated" - I read another filler article along those lines only yesterday in a major news outlet - but e-mail seems to survive nevertheless.
I actually think that a campaign to make secure e-mail more usable, including the adoption of concrete technological measures, would be helpful. There is the FSF's e-mail self-defence guide, but a lot of the problems with mail, particularly when interacting with institutions, is that those institutions are not motivated to secure their communications. So, grassroots adoption of such technologies is neither sufficient, nor is it sufficiently persuasive for either institutions or wider society to change their habits.
Paul