How to date girls using free software :P
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
co·erce
transitive verb
"to compel to an act or choice"
What I said:
"It's perfectly safe to say that Trisquel attempts to convince you to donate."
You really are just projecting here; coercion isn't always "bad". I never in any way said it is bad to ask for donations, but they are trying to convince you to donate by putting up those advertisements. That is coercion.
And now look up the definition of "compel".
A demand for a donation like "donate now!" doesn't coerce anyone in the slightest.
With that logic, facebook doesn't coerce anyone either.
It doesn't. Nobody is forced to join Facebook. So of course, you shouldn't join Facebook.
"It doesn't."
Point proven.
"So of course, you shouldn't join Facebook."
That depends on how much you value privacy, not how much you value freedom. This thread is about free software, not privacy.
hey, you convinced two people... you should be happy, that is more than most of us can actually ;)
"I don't know what oralfloss means by this. I imagine mbasic mode is some sort of mobile mode? In any case I doubt facebook even releases the source of all the code you run through their server. Much less give you the ability to copy or modify it."
Mbasic mode is a mode where no scripts are needed, and it is purely server-side. There's no proprietary javascript or anything of that nature. If you think server-side code is a major concern, you should stop using the internet entirely.
"I don't see how this could respect your freedom. Without further explanation I would say it does not."
This also goes for just about any website. If it's not my computer that is being used, then there is no problem. With your logic it would be bad to use just about any website on the internet.
"As far as I understand (I have never used this), facebook chat does not use XMPP. Rather, it emulates it so you can connect to it using Pidgin. This means you can only chat to other facebook users. So, it is not XMPP and not an open standard. Rather, a proprietary chat that interfaces with Pidgin through some sort of API."
IRC is a chat that runs on tons of different clients, most of which are free. Are you going to say that's a bad thing too just because you can't see what happens on every server?
"I just refuse to opt-in to "monopolistic/gated virtual community" practices."
There is a big difference between this and using proprietary software. I don't understand how you can call it "gated" just because you can't use facebook to send something to someone on a completely different client. "Monopolistic" is also a wrong term for this case because there's obviously hundreds of other different social networks as if enough haven't been mentioned in this thread already. Nobody is reliant on Facebook.
"Maybe I'm too strict about it. Who knows."
Obviously you are, because with your logic, nobody would be able to use any sort of data transfer unless they could see everything that happens server-side. That is proposterously and practially impossible.
"The result is I have very few people I can chat with. For now. I would rather dedicate my time to convincing a few of them to run a real XMPP than use fb myself. I have convinced 2 people so far. Not very good :("
I can see why.
I am a member!
"Mbasic mode is a mode where no scripts are needed, and it is purely server-side. There's no proprietary javascript or anything of that nature. If you think server-side code is a major concern, you should stop using the internet entirely.
This also goes for just about any website. If it's not my computer that is being used, then there is no problem. With your logic it would be bad to use just about any website on the internet."
I believe this logical fallacy is sometimes called reductio ad absurdum. I insist there is a difference between my posting on the Trisquel forum and using facebook, a mass surveillance, data mining, profiling system. This is not black and white.
Also, your argument that "If it is not my computer that is being used, then there is no problem" is flawed in my opinion. If I give you access to a remote terminal running Windows, then there's no problem? hmm.
"IRC is a chat that runs on tons of different clients, most of which are free. Are you going to say that's a bad thing too just because you can't see what happens on every server?"
No, I am going to say that XMPP is an open standard communications protocol using an open systems approach. Facebook can call their chat XMPP, but that doesn't make it so. It is a closed communications protocol that interfaces with XMPP chat clients through an API. It is not XMPP. Just like their code is not free software either.
"I don't understand how you can call it "gated" just because you can't use facebook to send something to someone on a completely different client."
Well, what's not to understand? That's the definition of a gated community.
""Monopolistic" is also a wrong term for this case because there's obviously hundreds of other different social networks as if enough haven't been mentioned in this thread already. Nobody is reliant on Facebook."
I'm talking about market dominance, not the ancient Greek definition. You may want to think about the antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft for an example of what I mean. Most people are reliant on facebook and thus trapped into it. In my case, at least 95% of the people I know are on facebook. I choose not to be a part of the gated community, so I am exiled.
"Obviously you are, because with your logic, nobody would be able to use any sort of data transfer unless they could see everything that happens server-side. That is proposterously and practially impossible."
Again, it is not binary. I think this kind of logical fallacy is called a false dichotomy.
"I believe this logical fallacy is sometimes called reductio ad absurdum. I insist there is a difference between my posting on the Trisquel forum and using facebook, a mass surveillance, data mining, profiling system. This is not black and white."
They are both SaaSS.
"Also, your argument that 'If it is not my computer that is being used, then there is no problem' is flawed in my opinion. If I give you access to a remote terminal running Windows, then there's no problem?"
Just as RMS uses others' computers to run proprietary programs sometimes, as he has claimed more than once.
"No, I am going to say that XMPP is an open standard communications protocol using an open systems approach. Facebook can call their chat XMPP, but that doesn't make it so. It is a closed communications protocol that interfaces with XMPP chat clients through an API. It is not XMPP. Just like their code is not free software either."
Just as Facebook can see all information that goes through their servers, XMPP servers can do likewise. Your judgment of trust isn't going to define the definition of SaaSS.
"Well, what's not to understand? That's the definition of a gated community."
Does that mean it's "gated" to not be able to order Papa John's Pizza through Trisquel comments? Everything is made with a purpose.
"I'm talking about market dominance, not the ancient Greek definition. You may want to think about the antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft for an example of what I mean. Most people are reliant on facebook and thus trapped into it. In my case, at least 95% of the people I know are on facebook. I choose not to be a part of the gated community, so I am exiled."
mo·nop·o·ly
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
Keywords: Exclusive, Control
Trisquel is not SaaSS and neither is Facebook (for the most part): SaaSS is doing your own computing on someone else server when you could do it on your own computer. For instance using an online translator instead of installing one on your system.
When posting something on a website, you are communicating. Sure, you could have your own server but why would the reader have to use your server (to answer for example)? Communicating is not doing your own computing. It is a shared activity and none of the party deserves the control of it more than the other.
That said, do not use Facebook! Not because it is SaaSS but because huge centralized databases about everybody (even nonusers!) are a huge threat to our privacies.
The whole point of this argument, actually this whole thread, is that the social networking service Facebook can be used with 100% free software. And, according to you, it isn't even SaaSS. Point proved.
Facebook's content can be rendered with a free software Web browser (such as Trisquel's Abrowser). The mobile version of Facebook does not make this browser run proprietary Javascript. So, unless you prove the contrary, "Facebook can be used with 100% free software".
Facebook's main use is to distribute content and to communicate with other users. It is not doing one's own computing. It is not SaaSS.
Again, I am talking about the main use of Facebook. Facebook's Flash "apps" (that only run in a proprietary Flash player) and are about solo games (SaaSS) contradict both points but are not Facebook's main use.
Facebook's problem is that it infringes its users' privacies. It has even become a threat to humanity that is as huge as its database (that is now known to be shared with the NSA). I do not like Facebook. At all. But that is not a reason to lie about it and pretend that it cannot be used with free software or that it is SaaSS. That is not intellectually honest. We are to convince people not to use Facebook for the real problems it raises.
I am a member!
I think your right and fortunately I've been pretty good about discouraging the people around me from adopting it. Unfortunately most don't understand the implications from the loss of privacy. Humorously it's the ones who are free software minded who seem to all be using it or have a desire to use it.
"Facebook's content can be rendered with a free software Web browser (such as Trisquel's Abrowser). The mobile version of Facebook does not make this browser run proprietary Javascript. So, unless you prove the contrary, "Facebook can be used with 100% free software"."
I'm not trying to prove contrary. That is my own statement. I'm just confused because you seem to say facebook isn't SaaSS while fbit (originally) says it is.
"Facebook's main use is to distribute content and to communicate with other users. It is not doing one's own computing. It is not SaaSS."
I agree with this. Fbit does not.
"Facebook's problem is that it infringes its users' privacies. It has even become a threat to humanity that is as huge as its database (that is now known to be shared with the NSA). I do not like Facebook. At all. But that is not a reason to lie about it and pretend that it cannot be used with free software or that it is SaaSS. That is not intellectually honest. We are to convince people not to use Facebook for the real problems it raises."
I am not the one making those claims, that is fbit. I am the one who said "Facebook can be used with 100% free software." I was simply showing that in the case some does consider facebook as SaaSS (again, I do not believe this), it would also apply to many other services, including Trisquel forums.
I am a member!
oralfloss,
I had decided to give you the last word, but this seems to be the thread that keeps on giving.
I don't use facebook so I'm not sure if it is SaaSS or PaaS and to tell you the truth, I don't think it matters. I had already conceded to Magic Banana's post where he said neither Trisquel nor facebook are SaaSS: "You are right." I will do so again: facebook at its core is not SaaSS and you can run it using 100% free software. You can also run SaaSS on it as far as I understand.
However, you keep arguing that facebook respects your freedom. Somehow you have concluded that as long as you run free software then whatever else you do is irrelevant to your freedom. I disagree. The intrusion into your privacy, the mass profiling, surveillance, social mapping, predictive modeling and all the other BI that is run on all the data given to facebook constitute attacks against freedom. I contend that without privacy you cannot have freedom.
I consider facebook one of the most dangerous attacks on freedom of thought currently. It is a monstrous creation and I cannot wait for the day when it is gone. I just hope we have something ethical to replace it with.
"I disagree. The intrusion into your privacy, the mass profiling, surveillance, social mapping, predictive modeling and all the other BI that is run on all the data given to facebook constitute attacks against freedom. I contend that without privacy you cannot have freedom."
That's what a privacy policy is for. I am free to use their services given those conditions, just as all other services have certain conditions. After all, we're using _their_ private servers that they use for making these social networks, and it is _they_ who should have the freedom to use it as they please. There have been many people asking about why extensive swearing isn't allowed on the Trisquel forums, and there are always reasons given. Is it right to say removing extensive swearing on the Trisquel forums is an attack on my freedom? By your standards it is, and that is where I do not agree. I believe people should be able to control their own computing. Ergo, I don't believe Facebook takes away freedom.
On 08/10/13 09:54, oralfloss wrote:
> That's what a privacy policy is for. I am free to use their services
> given those conditions, just as all other services have certain
> conditions. There have been many people asking about why extensive
> swearing isn't allowed on Trisquel, and there are always reasons
> given. Is it right to say removing extensive swearing on Trisquel is
> an attack on my freedom? By your standards it is, and that is where I
> do not agree. Ergo, I don't believe Facebook takes away freedom.
The difference between Facebook and the Trisquel forum/list is that
Facebook is a global, centralised method of communications, which mixes
private, group and public communication into one service. That's dangerous.
Trisquel, on the other hand, is a public list which, if users are using
the list, enables users to communicate off-list and out of its control.
Because it's built using free software we can easily replace the list.
Archives are also available for download. It's completely different to
Facebook.
I do think that centralisation does threaten the freedom of
communication on the internet.
Andrew.
No matter what services you use, unless they are 100% p2p, they will be centralised.
I am a member!
I understand what you're saying. I just don't think you realize the implications. I'm not saying what they're doing is illegal (although I do think it should be). All I'm saying is that freedom is not just about free software.
I highly recommend Eben Moglen's 2012 keynote at Re:publica. I'd like to know what you think:
https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia
He basically concludes saying: "We need free software. We need free hardware. We need free bandwidth. We need free media."
We have free media. Whether one considers Facebook free media or not, we still have access to free media. Facebook doesn't try to oppress every type of media it can, but rather it collects data about its users. Therefore, Facebook is not an attack on our civil liberties. It is completely optional for users and optional to submit data to it.
To make an analogy, Facebook is a tolled bridge on an river that flows downstream for an infinite amount of miles. Anyone can build their own bridge on this river, or use already set up non-tolled bridges. By tolling the people who cross the Facebook bridge, is Facebook really oppressing the entire river and both sides of it? No. They are just making it convenient for users who are in that area, but for a cost.
On 08/10/13 16:01, oralfloss wrote:
> To make an analogy, Facebook is a tolled bridge on an river that
> flows downstream for an infinite amount of miles. Anyone can build
> their own bridge on this river, or use already set up non-tolled
> bridges. By tolling the people who cross the Facebook bridge, is
> Facebook really oppressing the entire river and both sides of it?
> No. They are just making it convenient for users who are in that
> area, but for a cost.
But to continue that analogy, many of your friends can only be reached
across that single tolled bridge on the internet. They probably know
that it's the only bridge, but they don't know anything else (or care).
Some people say that the bridge toll operator is nice, and would never
unfairly block someone from crossing it. Of course I think that's
bullshit. Facebook can stop you from crossing that bridge whenever they
feel like it.
Whereas other more decentralised, federated protocols like email and
XMPP make users more reachable by other bridges. If one bridge is cut
off, another bridge can always be used. Or maybe there is a ferry you
can catch.
Andrew.
"But to continue that analogy, many of your friends can only be reached
across that single tolled bridge on the internet. They probably know
that it's the only bridge, but they don't know anything else (or care)."
That is their own ignorance that is impairing them, not Facebook. They can make their own bridges or cross free ones if they like.
"Some people say that the bridge toll operator is nice, and would never
unfairly block someone from crossing it. Of course I think that's
bullshit. Facebook can stop you from crossing that bridge whenever they
feel like it."
That is their choice. It's their bridge.
"Whereas other more decentralised, federated protocols like email and
XMPP make users more reachable by other bridges. If one bridge is cut
off, another bridge can always be used. Or maybe there is a ferry you
can catch."
People are free to use those too, but using the Facebook bridge isn't going to cut-off your freedom to use those other bridges.
I am a member!
[This was meant to be in response to oralfloss. Andrew and I seem to agree. Sorry, I made a mistake and responded below the wrong post]
The problem with analogies is we have to be very careful that they make sense. I think your analogy does not. A bridge, in this sense of the word, is a structure (in this case you claim facebook) carrying a road (in this case I assume digital information) across something (for traditional bridges, a river, a road, etc. -- in your analogy, I am not sure what it is). So, a bridge connects 2 points basically. A tolled bridge is one which charges you a fee to cross. Bridges are not meant for people to live on them, they are meant to be crossed.
Now, imagine if you will, a gated community and you have to be a member to belong to this gated community. There is a wall all around the community, and people live inside. Once inside, you can use some of it's gates or bridges to access the outside. Some services and corporations can get inside this community, but not people, unless you happen to live there and pay the price. I have already called facebook a gated community or walled garden and you have already dismissed it, so I'm weary about turning this into a circular argument. However, I cannot concede that facebook is a bridge; it does not behave like one. Facebook is a gated community with many "tolled bridges." In order to get in as a physical person, you must pay with your privacy. In order to get in, as a corporation, you must pay for advertisement. And a few other bridge variants connecting the community with the digital world at large. Only one type of connection given to the outside world with the community; a limited peeping hole (try looking inside facebook without an account). All the bridges and the peeping hole are controlled by facebook, as well as the community itself.
If you follow Moglen's argument, facebook is not free media. Why is it not? Because it is media that consumes you. Free media, according to him, is media that does not watch you watch it, listen to you listen to it or read you reading it. For the time being, the only visible consequence you can see from this model is the targeted advertising. However, what it really is is 24-7 total surveillance of its users. He compares it to Lubianka. The turnkey totalitarianism that total surveillance enables should be quite obvious. The potential for censorship should also be quite obvious.
In any case, I really hope you are right not to be concerned and I am wrong about the negative potential of services like facebook, for all of our sakes. It took the Third Reich one year to locate all the Jews in Germany. With facebook it would take 1 day. I believe that we should shape our governments, or "services," and our life in such a way to minimize the potential for abuse, given the worse possible outcome (lets say, for illustration only, someone like Pol Pot becomes dictator in the U.S.). The moment we start creating "solutions" and policies that assume benevolent leaders in order for abuse not to take place, we are setting ourselves up for disaster. Like I said, I sincerely hope that I am wrong and you are right.
"The problem with analogies is we have to be very careful that they make sense. I think your analogy does not. A bridge, in this sense of the word, is a structure (in this case you claim facebook) carrying a road (in this case I assume digital information) across something (for traditional bridges, a river, a road, etc. -- in your analogy, I am not sure what it is). So, a bridge connects 2 points basically. A tolled bridge is one which charges you a fee to cross. Bridges are not meant for people to live on them, they are meant to be crossed."
Bridges are a way to get things from one side to another. Technically speaking, this would be data/information. They are carrying things across the river, which is what prevents the people from communicating. In real life, this would be travel distance. It stops people from easily communicating from one side to another, so they use the bridges (the internet - Facebook, email, xmpp, etc.) for communications.
"If you follow Moglen's argument, facebook is not free media."
Facebook may not be free media, but it isn't preventing you from using any other form of free media. There are always going to be different ways to communicate, some less censored than others.
"In any case, I really hope you are right not to be concerned and I am wrong about the negative potential of services like facebook, for all of our sakes. It took the Third Reich one year to locate all the Jews in Germany. With facebook it would take 1 day. I believe that we should shape our governments, or "services," and our life in such a way to minimize the potential for abuse, given the worse possible outcome (lets say, for illustration only, someone like Pol Pot becomes dictator in the U.S.). The moment we start creating "solutions" and policies that assume benevolent leaders in order for abuse not to take place, we are setting ourselves up for disaster. Like I said, I sincerely hope that I am wrong and you are right."
This isn't all about who is wrong or who is right, as I mentioned earlier, but rather it is about defending freedom. Sure, giving leaders information/power can be disastrous under certain circumstances, but naturally all humans seek power. We fear those who have greater power than us, so we always seek more. In an anarchic/realist society, we go to war with those who we fear will gain more power than us eventually, to prevent that from happening. Just like the Peloponessian war, which "realists" claim was inevitable, the gaining of power always leads to tension. The thing here that realists never realize, and has been proven beneficial and viable by hundreds of thousands of scholars, is that diplomacy exists. Disaster isn't inevitable.
You wrote originally in this thread:
"They [refering also to facebook] are both SaaSS."
Magic Banana posts: " It is not SaaSS."
and your answer:
"I agree with this. Fbit does not."
I think you're rather twisting things around so you finally reach the conclusion that your "point is proven".
Given the terms that fbit was using to define SaaSS, they would both be. I don't believe either are. When I try to put things using my own definitions all fbit can do is make his own, so I use those definitions instead. When other people butt in to the conversation, they assume that I actually prefer those definitions, and I do not.
I am a member!
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
2) XMPP is an open standard. The opposite of the gated community example.
3) There are various degrees of monopoly, and rarely does anything approaching pure monopoly exist. Thus, the term is generally used in a relative sense rather than an absolute one. For example, a company can still be considered a monopoly even if it faces competition from (1) a few relatively small scale suppliers of the same or similar product(s) or (2) somewhat different goods or services that can to some limited extent be substituted for the product(s) supplied by the monopolist. A business that produces multiple products can be considered a monopoly even if it has a monopoly with regard to only one of the products.
http://www.linfo.org/monopoly.html
That's the end of this on my side.
You keep claiming your term "Reductio ad absurdum" like it means something, but you have yet to explain the line at which something is considered that. Anyone can reduce to absurdity, but who are you to decide at which point that occurs? Is it just your own sense of false security that you use to gain a moral high ground for an argument? Sounds like you're not really defending freedom here.
I have convinced 2 people so far.(
I think it's great just to make good examples of ourselves by publicly rejecting these big, centralized services -- especially services that are known to comply with massive state surveillance of users. It's hard to convince others (I can't even convince my own family to stop using Facebook), but at very least we seed an idea in their minds, and they'll start to think about why we're not participating.
I used Facebook for several years. Even after I read RMS's notes about Facebook, I remained a user for at least another year, but the idea of leaving was seeded. It just took some time for the idea to grow before I finally decided it was wrong for me to participate. During the time I was on Facebook, I hadn't just given up my own privacy, I had betrayed the privacy of others by posting their pictures and labeling them. I had helped to train Facebook's face recognition system.
I only use Facebook to contact a few of my "legacy" friends from before I stopped using things like Facebook. Eventually I hope to convince those few of them to at least communicate via email or Jabber with me.
As far as I can tell, Facebook uses a closed-up, proprietary XMPP protocol for chat. It is a web standard after all. Of course this doesn't mean their chat is free: you can only talk to other FB users, and whatever's going on on their servers is obviously proprietary.
"and whatever's going on on their servers is obviously proprietary."
As with a lot of XMPP servers, IRC servers, and pretty much every other server. Even if server software is open-source and free, you still don't know for sure if they are keeping logs or tracking users, and you can never know for sure.
I am a member!
m.facebook.com is as close to fre as you're likely to get. It even works with a browser like lynx or emacs-w3m. I use facebook xmpp chat; wish it had audio. Facebook can be used with free software on the client side, as a service. True, it's not ideal...
I am a member!
I see. I have no clue about facebook, mobile or not. It may be as close as you are likely to get, if you want to use facebook. You can still be freer and not use it.
The fb chat is not xmpp. From facebook developers page:
"Facebook Chat should be compatible with every XMPP client, but is not a full XMPP server. It should be thought of as a proxy into the world of Facebook Chat on ww.facebook.com. As a result, it has several behaviors that differ slightly from what you would expect from a traditional XMPP service:
-Your client cannot send or receive HTML messages
-Because roster items and presence subscriptions are based on the user's Facebook friends, they cannot be created or deleted using the standard XMPP mechanisms.
-Facebook Chat is terse when sending updates for new friends, because the negotiation happens outside of XMPP. Future versions of Facebook Chat may be more conformant.
-The user's own Jabber ID (JID) is different from the Jabber ID that their contacts will see because the translation is done internally.
-Arbitrary IQ stanzas cannot be passed between clients.
-Presence probes do not currently work.
-Non-SASL authentication with the jabber:iq:auth namespace as described in XEP-0078 is not currently supported.
The XML parser does not yet fully handle XML namespaces. Please stick to the same style as the examples in XMPP RFCs 3920 and 3921 when using XML namespaces."
The most important deficiency being you're either stuck inside their walled garden, or out. I wonder if at least it gives you the chance to use OTR?
Edit: Edited out the link to the site.
I am glad that the original poster has started this thread. This is something that I have been thinking about, ever since I learned that there was another gay boy on the bus at school. Each day, I see him at the center of attention, with an iPad and an iPhone, asking people if they have a Facebook or if they can send him a message on Facebook about something. He's so smooth and popular; I know I'd be so awkward that he wouldn't like me.
It makes me feel so lonely. I think I should go ahead and say I live on LibrePlanet rather than Earth. I even compromised and relapsed to using Android, Kik and Omegle. Alas!
"He's so smooth and popular; I know I'd be so awkward that he wouldn't like me. "
But you never tried? So how can you know?
Imagine you have a facebook account and finally you two become a couple.
How would it feel knowing that this happens just because of this website?
I don't know; personally, I would prefer staying lonely. At least this is no illusion.
This sounds like common sense, but women like a man who has good self esteem and is confident in his conviction. If you are funny, that helps a lot too as a good sense of humor can really break the ice on a date and sustain it if it becomes a relationship.
Also remember that it is not a requirement that your future mate is like you. It is good to have some common ground that you can agree on and shared interests, but your relationship will be strong if she can be your polar opposite.
For example, I have a strong background in acting as well as improv/sketch comedy and I wouldn't date another theatre chick. It would be too exausting and I prefer women that are a little bit more grounded and serious.
Well, first I apologize for not replying sooner. I was without internet for a few days -.-
Next, i would like to thanks everyone who gave some kind of feedback, and i would like to say this: this thread was mostly supposed to be fun to begin with. Not a very serious topic, just a fun thought to discuss, and I am happy that many different interpretations were given to my question. I was not really asking about "which free software to use to do this and that", it was just about... a perspective. Some people actually took it as "how to use facebook without proprietary software"... well, good for you :P
I won't be using facebook, but to each his own :P
Thanks to everyone and keep discussing whatever you think is worth discussing inside this thread. For me, the information posted was already useful in one way or another. Thanks guys!
Taking it to a serious level, don't fall for Facebook or other social media (you could also argue get a simple cell phone not a smart one). I recenty watched a very interesing video that came on LXF - a Stallman presentation. A guy from East Germany (not sure if living in Ireland/Eire now) used an old Irish law to force Facebook to provide him with the information they held on him - some 4000 pages of information - and he commented that when he had lived in East Germany, the Stasi did not have that much information! Also cell phones have non free software that can listen in on conversations that don't have to be near the mouth they can be on the other side of the room! So take care out there! Stallman also mentioned of a Belgian guy who had to sue his mobile operator to get his geolocation records - 3000 pages long with 200 geolocations per day over a 3 month period kept on record! And phones don't have to be in use - triangulation is used between transmitters to 'best guess' your location. ;-)
As to social media why don't you win girls over by creating your own 'faceoff' social media site? This has been covered in Linux Format so what is stopping you?
To be honest, I understand (now more than before) that there is no real need to hide EVERYTHING about you. Of course, the kind of spying that you are mentioning is wrong and I would say criminal. But it's like... a social network like Diaspora, that apparently respects the users a lot more than facebook, is actually ok. Of course, everything that you decide to share with the world there is still available to anyone to look and know more about you, but that is the difference, you actually have a lot more control over those things. The problem is that these days the services that everyone chooses to use are the ones that actually DON'T respect you (facebook and skype mainly).
For me it has become a matter of balance between not becoming a caveman and still protecting myself. Since I have suffered some persecution before due to private stuff becoming "public", I am still leaning more towards the second point :P
Thanks for your answer!
One question, could you give me a link to that Linux Format thing you mentioned? Thanks.
Well, Diaspora, pump.io, owncloud and others you can install in your own server. Can be at home or anywhere :-)
Is the power in your hands.
Facebook is a global psychological profiling and surveillance tool, masquerading as a "social networking" tool.
Of course it can be accessed using free software - it's a broad net, designed to catch as many fish as possible. To lock people out based on their refusal to use proprietary software would be counter productive.
The feeling of being 'left out' is very powerful. It's so hard, sometimes I get such a strong desire to "have a smartphone, use Windows, watch soap operas, read the gutter press, support a football team, be just like everyone else", even though I know I'd hate it, even though I've spent my whole adult life avoiding such things.
Whether you want to call it the path of righteousness/wisdom/enlightenment/freedom/political awareness/whatever. It can be a very lonely road at times.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios