A website that is being linked to in one of the wiki pages advertises for Facebook, Twitter and Google+
This wiki page https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/tweak-your-browser-enhance-security-and-privacy
includes a link to a website which "tests your browser's safety".
After you have tested your browser, it recommends to share on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
I propose to remove the link to the website because of "branding issues".
If you are strongly against this, please explain :)
You mean Panopticlick? That's a useful service from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They are the good guys. Checking your fingerprint is recommended.
Facebook is good to avoid in general. The exception is if you want to reach people on Facebook in order to help lead them away from Facebook. Facebook useds might not understand why Facebook is a problem if they are unaware of the dangers of mass surveillance, so sharing Panoptoclick on Facebook might help them.
Stallman has a page[1] on how organizations can reach people on Facebook in a way that minimizes the extent to which they contribute to Facebook's power. As he puts it:
"Facebook is a bad place for a person to be. When people find us on Facebook, we lead them away from Facebook and then talk with them elsewhere."
I understand :) thank you both for explaining
Not all social media buttons are equally harmful. Some like buttons are surveillance trackers, while some are harmless links without dubious JavaScript involved.
I don't always find it easy to distinguish between the two.
I am also rather new to computing in general (I've grown up with a pc, and used it all mye life, but new in the sense that I'm new to digging deep in understanding the mechanics).
I am also rather new to the concept of free software and privacy issues etc, so I will maybe ask some questions that may seem obvious for some of you veterans.
Even still, I find it useful to keep asking questions when I wonder about something.
1. I may learn something
2. Others that share my confusion may learn something
3. People that explain may learn something, they say teaching is the best practice
4. Reality is flowing and everchanging, an instance that was "good" yesterday might have become "bad" today. And so I find it useful to always update, always ask, always double check :)
I want to elaborate on my number 4 bullet point while I am writing.
For example FSF endorsed Purity which many people have many issues with, which I find understandable.
These things (and similar examples) I think is important to question. So no matter where the information is coming from, it might be outdated or direct misleading.
I say: never blindly trust anyone, not even FSF.
> For example FSF endorsed Purity which many people have many issues
> with, which I find understandable.
Are you referring to Purism? The FSF endorses freedom-respecting software and hardware on a case-by-case basis. They don't endorse companies. The only product of Purism's that the FSF has endorsed is PureOS, which is not a problem because PureOS follows the FSDG.
I understand this.
I was emphasizing that I understand why many people reacted negatively to that particular endorsement, given the circumstances around Purism's business model.
I don't know what is Facebook, Twitter of Google. I'm form China...
