negative campaigning?

[Daniel Pocock]

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


1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis