TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Reasons not to use Facebook

605 点作者 jestinjoy1大约 10 年前

35 条评论

paulsecwhatt大约 10 年前
I honestly don&#x27;t understand why people value Stallman&#x27;s opinions on these matters so highly. I completely disagree with him on essentially everything he writes about these topics.<p>Granted, he&#x27;s an incredible programmer who contributed immensely to the development of our modern operating systems and the tools we use, and people here love to bring that up (&quot;what - you DON&#x27;T KNOW WHO STALLMAN IS? SHAME? HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE HIM?&quot;)<p>Does this make his opinion on Facebook or privacy or freedom any more correct or valid? No.<p>Just like I wouldn&#x27;t listen to Usain Bolt if he were trying to teach me the biological mechanisms behind doping, I can&#x27;t see why Stallman&#x27;s opinion is considered so correct in these matters.<p>IMO his ramblings about personal liberties and freedom being infringed by everything under the sun from Amazon to Google to Facebook are oversimplified and childish. The world isn&#x27;t black and white and he obviously fails to understand the entire point behind many of these companies. When Facebook makes you use a real name it&#x27;s not because theres some &quot;Mr. Evil&quot; at the top level plotting to steal your freedom, it&#x27;s because it leads to a better working social network.<p>Just his description of AirBnB is ridiculous: &quot;Airbnb requires you to run nonfree software (an app, or Javascript). It puts you in a data base easily available to Big Brother (just like a hotel).&quot;<p>That&#x27;s an immensely stupid argument, because any _viable_ company that wants to provide a service that a consumer other than Stallman himself will use will &quot;infringe&quot; on those two idiotic requirements.<p>TL;DR. Just because he did something amazing in one field&#x2F;area, doesn&#x27;t mean he is not spewing complete BS. For a similar example, see: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;commentisfree&#x2F;2014&#x2F;dec&#x2F;01&#x2F;dna-jam...</a>
评论 #9201809 未加载
评论 #9201897 未加载
评论 #9201822 未加载
评论 #9201798 未加载
评论 #9202105 未加载
评论 #9201829 未加载
评论 #9201836 未加载
评论 #9201856 未加载
评论 #9201810 未加载
评论 #9202201 未加载
评论 #9201908 未加载
评论 #9202345 未加载
评论 #9201855 未加载
评论 #9201914 未加载
评论 #9202157 未加载
评论 #9202243 未加载
评论 #9202378 未加载
评论 #9202641 未加载
评论 #9203032 未加载
评论 #9201876 未加载
评论 #9202134 未加载
评论 #9201933 未加载
评论 #9201849 未加载
评论 #9208588 未加载
评论 #9202187 未加载
评论 #9212684 未加载
评论 #9201899 未加载
评论 #9201993 未加载
评论 #9201989 未加载
Frondo大约 10 年前
My problem with essays like this is that they don&#x27;t address the more critical underlying point: most people don&#x27;t recognize privacy as a human right, and most people don&#x27;t realize <i>why</i> privacy is important and worth protecting.<p>To most people, &quot;if you&#x27;ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide&quot; sounds <i>reasonable</i>.<p>That&#x27;s the deeper problem at work here. With more people on board to why privacy matters, articles like this will be more of an &quot;oh, yeah!&quot; instead of a &quot;so what?&quot; kind of thing.
评论 #9201799 未加载
评论 #9201923 未加载
评论 #9201854 未加载
评论 #9201918 未加载
评论 #9201777 未加载
评论 #9201782 未加载
评论 #9201881 未加载
评论 #9203211 未加载
SeanDav大约 10 年前
There seems to have been a sea change in opinion of many HN posters here, especially among the more recent visitors to HN. A couple of years ago Facebook was considered by many here to be an invasion of privacy and just not worth the effort. That general opinion seems to have changed for some. A lot of newer posters seem to be of the opinion that lack of privacy is a cost worth paying for convenience and will apologize for, defend and even support companies like FB that blatantly invade privacy.
评论 #9202559 未加载
评论 #9202562 未加载
评论 #9202808 未加载
评论 #9202574 未加载
评论 #9203332 未加载
评论 #9203188 未加载
评论 #9202646 未加载
评论 #9202535 未加载
GigabyteCoin大约 10 年前
A friend of mine was turned off of a potentially new employee the other day because the candidate exclaimed that they recognized a customer from their instagram profile and that they followed it, loved it, etc.<p>The customer was obviously embarrased, exclaimed that he had not used instagram in over a year, and promptly left the store.<p>This left an uneasy feeling in my friend (the store owner). Which confused me to be honest. What did that customer expect when they placed their picture and basically entire lives on a public website with geotagged images? The new employee was told to be talkative with all clients as they worked in customer service, and so they attempted to strike up a conversation or at least a similar interest in the customer&#x27;s publicly viewable leisure activities.<p>That was how the candidate discovered him on instagram in the first place by the way. It was because he only posted pictures of the local area.
评论 #9201932 未加载
评论 #9202238 未加载
评论 #9202269 未加载
评论 #9201802 未加载
pooogie大约 10 年前
His opinion may seem ridiculous to many here, but the following has happened quite a few times before:<p>1. Stallman shares radical opinion<p>2. He&#x27;s ridiculed for his outlandish claims<p>3. Some news breaks or things happen gradually<p>4. Now people say &#x27;Stallman called it&#x27; or realize he was right all along
评论 #9201815 未加载
mark_l_watson大约 10 年前
Another good article by Richard Stallman - his ideas keep gaining even more relevance for me.<p>I do use Facebook to plug my books and to hopefully drive traffic to my blog articles, but I have been considering cancelling my account.<p>I have similar issues with Google, but with Google I get much more value: using G+ to promote my own web properties, and generally really useful services.<p>That said, I have switched to using my GMail address as a secondary email that I don&#x27;t often check, and having the people most important to me use my own email address. Also, I give this advice all the time: choose one web browser like Chrome for use just with social media (Google, Facebook, and Twitter web properties) and another web browser for everything else.
评论 #9203246 未加载
jfoster大约 10 年前
I view my decision to use Facebook as a transaction. Sure, I lose some &quot;privacy&quot;, but I also get a lot of value in return.<p>I use quotes around &quot;privacy&quot; because I&#x27;m not sure I understand it the same way that Facebook critics do. When I&#x27;m using a changeroom, I expect privacy. When I take on a pseudonym and don&#x27;t identify myself by name, I expect privacy. When I&#x27;m knowingly uploading photos that I am happy for the world to see, I don&#x27;t have much of an expectation of privacy, and without an expectation of privacy I&#x27;m not sure I have any privacy to lose. That said, I don&#x27;t think about this too much, so would love to hear well-reasoned arguments against my point of view on that.
评论 #9202415 未加载
评论 #9202230 未加载
评论 #9202075 未加载
junto大约 10 年前
Facebook is like a dentist. The benefit is that you get to spy on old friends who aren&#x27;t really friends anymore, but you have to remember that a) the dentist is going to cause you pain, and b) he&#x27;s going to invoice for for the pleasure of doing so. The difference is that the dentist has your best interests at heart, whilst Facebook has its own best interests as its primary focus, its customers secondary, and hint hint - you aren&#x27;t the customer.
评论 #9201896 未加载
Veedrac大约 10 年前
Since this seems to just be a braindump, I might as well add Veritasium&#x27;s comments on the matter:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g</a><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag</a><p>I found them pretty interesting listening from a content-distribution and -consumption side of things, rather than from a social-network perspective.
gaadd33大约 10 年前
&gt; Algorithmic filtering can affect history, not just hide history. Facebook&#x27;s filtering algorithm suppressed news about the thug riot in Ferguson until after it became national news.<p>Calling all of the protestors in Ferguson &quot;thugs&quot; seems pretty off base. I&#x27;m surprised he characterized everyone there like that when his previous few points seemed to be in favor of the ability to protest the government. I guess he only feels that way when it&#x27;s not in the US?<p>It&#x27;s interesting he drew that conclusion from the article he links to, given that they mention prior to things such as twitter it would only be characterized on the news as a place to avoid due to &quot;looters, thugs, troublemakers&quot; in a minor segment.
评论 #9201752 未加载
评论 #9201699 未加载
评论 #9201688 未加载
评论 #9201961 未加载
评论 #9201755 未加载
评论 #9201760 未加载
评论 #9201749 未加载
ramigb大约 10 年前
From an avid FB user who spent three hours a day to someone who has his account deactivated for more than a month, that is how much convinced i am that FB is nothing but utter garbage and i just had enough with it.
评论 #9201964 未加载
评论 #9202577 未加载
Yhippa大约 10 年前
Would he be better off creating a minimal verified profile to de-legitimize other fake profiles? I know he would never do that but it&#x27;s an interesting thing to consider in today&#x27;s world.<p>Let&#x27;s say you&#x27;re not averse to social media&#x2F;networking. Do you go ahead and claim your name so that someone with a list of compromised or usernames don&#x27;t grab it before you do?
评论 #9202028 未加载
esfandia大约 10 年前
Here&#x27;s one thing I like about Facebook: it has stopped the flood of chain-emails I used to receive from random &quot;friends&quot;. They post that stuff on Facebook now instead. It&#x27;s the perfect honeypot.
评论 #9201958 未加载
kartikkumar大约 10 年前
Although I can get the rationale of most things he says, I’m not sure that he’s always offering sane alternative options:<p>&gt; Don&#x27;t be tracked — pay cash.<p>I’m wondering how he imagines this would pan out. Is RMS also against banking, since banks mine your data too. Does he suggest stuffing your mattress full of cash? (serious question).<p>In the US, where credit ratings are essential to be able to make any sizeable&#x2F;significant purchases (car, house etc.), I’m wondering what he suggests as being the alternative. Or is he just supposed to reject all purchases that aren’t feasible with cash?<p>I’m curious if he’s opposed to Bitcoin too.<p>I’m not familiar enough with his writings to discern whether he’s simply a dissenter or also someone that has a view towards sane, realistic solutions.
评论 #9203214 未加载
jdkanani大约 10 年前
&gt; We call them &quot;useds&quot; rather than &quot;users&quot; because Facebook is using them, not vice versa.<p>This line summarizes it all up.
abdias大约 10 年前
Considering that Zuckerberg is a great admire of China and apparently socialism[0], it doesn&#x27;t come to me as a huge surprise that these &quot;ethics&quot; are guidelines for Facebook.<p>“I’ve also bought copies of this book for my colleagues,” Zuckerberg was quoted as saying by a Chinese news website. “I want them to understand socialism with Chinese characteristics.”<p>[0]: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/12/08/why-does-mark-zuckerberg-want-facebook-employees-to-read-the-chinese-presidents-book/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;worldviews&#x2F;wp&#x2F;2014&#x2F;12&#x2F;08...</a>
评论 #9201726 未加载
评论 #9201835 未加载
评论 #9201768 未加载
评论 #9203137 未加载
评论 #9201756 未加载
nerdy大约 10 年前
RMS is a strange duality. On the one hand he&#x27;s a freedom advocate and has put considerable effort forward to make our world a better place; it&#x27;s hard to not have a great deal of respect for him. On the other hand he&#x27;s brilliant but quite frankly a lunatic, benign freedom extremist... and I don&#x27;t even have a Facebook account! I can only imagine how he might come off to people who&#x27;re hardcore social media consumers.
Aoyagi大约 10 年前
The worst thing about Facebook I personally see is the peer (or even professional) pressure to have an account there and be active. And them doing what all (American?) megacorps do: buying small companies, stripping them of assets, absorbing them and forgetting them.<p>Then again, some people build start-ups for this very reason, don&#x27;t they.
smutticus大约 10 年前
The #1 reason not to use FB is you cannot bitch about FB. I have little patience or sympathy for people who use FB and constantly complain about it. They should stop using it.<p>I don&#x27;t use FB, which means I have little reason to bitch about it, and if I do want to bitch about it I don&#x27;t sound like a hypocrit.
TheSpiceIsLife大约 10 年前
As a complimentary perspective:<p>For those who haven&#x27;t seen it, I think Slavoj Žižek and Paul Holdengräber on &quot;Surveillance and whistleblowers&quot; is worth a watch. The part about surveillance starts at 21:14 so this link will take you there <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIPjmmmh_os#t=21m14s" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=PIPjmmmh_os#t=21m14s</a><p>Žižek: &quot;The most dangerous unfreedom is the unfreedom you don&#x27;t even experience, as such. If some of you are feminists ... every good feminist will tell you the first step of feminism is just to realise your situation of oppression... We need something similar here. That&#x27;s the first point. The second point ... I&#x27;m a little bit sceptic about this paranoia &#x27;ooh we are totally controlled&#x27; and so on and so on, I think we shouldn&#x27;t take this too seriously. And this doesn&#x27;t make the situation any easier if anything it makes it more... it [paranoia] is justified, but we should be aware, again we go in to metaphorics again the NSA the Big Eye knows everything, again the mega-machinery is extremely stupid, they don&#x27;t know what they know. Do you remember, this is a very superficial anecdote ... a guy in LA was Googling the ways to kill your wife something like that, a couple days afterward the FBI brutally entered his house arrested him blah blah blah. Why? Because Google reported this to FBI. But do you know what was the result, this guy was a was one of the you know all the [TV] series CIS &#x2F; police investigation, we was simply writing a scenario and wanted to check you know, and you have this again and again or form China they told me a wonderful example of this stupidity a guy just before Tiananmen [Square] anniversary a guy was an English professor in Beijing was flirting with a lady in London, and since they were both educated he used a wonderful quote from Shakespeare, because you know in Elizabethan England the word &quot;protest&quot; meant also &quot;I publicly declare&quot; and he quoted to her &quot;I protest my love to you&quot; chop-chop and the conversation was cut short because the word &quot;protest&quot; was prohibited because of associations with Tiananmen, what I find so ridiculous is that if the guy were to be extremely vulgar and told the lady something like &quot;I will fuck your brain out&quot; everything would be okay, you quote Shakespeare... You know computers just give you immense amounts of data and you can play with it.&quot;<p>Errors and omissions intentional as I&#x27;m directly transcribing Žižek talking.<p>He then goes on to relate an experience as a young adult in Slovenia meeting with his friends and upon parting, knowing everything was recorded, they didn&#x27;t hind anything and at the end of the conversation they would say something like &quot;Mother baked a good apple pie&quot; and then later found out this really confused the people monitoring their conversations.
评论 #9201944 未加载
mtarnovan大约 10 年前
First I thought it was a typo, but it can&#x27;t be, there are too many occurrences - looks like Stallman is intentionally referring to FB users as &#x27;useds&#x27;:<p>&gt; Facebook carefully studies all the text that its <i>useds</i> type in and then don&#x27;t submit.<p>&gt; Facebook, as an &quot;experiment&quot;, collected the text its <i>useds</i> started to enter as status updates and ultimately did not send.
评论 #9203171 未加载
评论 #9202863 未加载
patrickdavey大约 10 年前
If you haven&#x27;t watched it yet, I can highly recommend the documentary &#x27;citizenfour&#x27;, which is about the meetings between Snowden and Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian intelligence reporter Ewen MacAskill.<p>Free to watch here:<p><a href="https://thoughtmaybe.com/citizenfour/" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thoughtmaybe.com&#x2F;citizenfour&#x2F;</a>
Create大约 10 年前
“As your client knows, Mr. Zuckerberg goes to great lengths to protect the privacy of his personal life.”<p>Which adds a wrinkle: Some people requiring nondisclosure are the very ones who have built an industry on its opposite, the disclosure of personal information.
hobarrera大约 10 年前
I&#x27;ve never understood why people insist on enumerating reasons why <i>not</i> to use facebook.<p>There&#x27;s already a lack of reasons to use it (unless you count funny games and cat pictures), shouldn&#x27;t that be enough in itself?
AnonJ大约 10 年前
Stallman is becoming quite increasingly peculiar. Not really interested in his talks. His software was great but his ideology (and generally that of FSF) is probably a kind of out of touch with the reality.
PebblesHD大约 10 年前
At this point in the evolution in technology, I find that Stallman is increasingly irrelevant when his commentary is basically stating every basic point of the site and then saying its bad. Don&#x27;t want to use your real name? Don&#x27;t join a site where the goal is to publicly connect with people you know. Don&#x27;t want your privacy violated, post only what you feel comfortable with. With every new step in the advance of technology and the Internet of things, services such as, but not necessarily including Facebook will have access to an ever expanding array of information about our lives. This information can be used for good as well as bad, but this doesn&#x27;t mean we shouldn&#x27;t persue it.
评论 #9201707 未加载
评论 #9201721 未加载
评论 #9201677 未加载
评论 #9201706 未加载
评论 #9201900 未加载
评论 #9201825 未加载
评论 #9203676 未加载
评论 #9201769 未加载
评论 #9201770 未加载
daminimal大约 10 年前
With 112 mentions of Facebook I&#x27;d say this is a great ad.
zachrose大约 10 年前
I like: <a href="https://stallman.org/common/stallman.css" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stallman.org&#x2F;common&#x2F;stallman.css</a>
评论 #9202316 未加载
EGreg大约 10 年前
Why is &quot;user&quot; replaced with &quot;used&quot; everywhere? It isn&#x27;t a typo, it&#x27;s Stallman&#x27;s NLP-style punning?
评论 #9208172 未加载
vohof大约 10 年前
People tend to overthink this. The only reason alot of people use facebook is because that&#x27;s where all their friends are.
whowhat大约 10 年前
Why did this topic fall to the second page on HN so quickly, despite its relatively high upvotes, activity, and recency?
pain大约 10 年前
Reasons to support free <a href="http://www.getaether.net" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.getaether.net</a> and <a href="https://www.matrix.org" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.matrix.org</a> software.<p>Desperate developers needing research time and money for supporting and advancing federatable networks.
erodingvar大约 10 年前
&gt; if you talk about your friends in Facebook, you&#x27;re ratting on them<p>This statement reveals the paranoid perspective behind this publication.<p>While there are many valid reasons why some people may not want to use Facebook, I think it&#x27;s as interesting to wonder reasons why people would be so opposed to everyone using it.<p>I think had Stallman been less weird, he may feel differently about Facebook. For someone like him, any personal details visible to others is likely to result in harm to him.<p>When you don&#x27;t fit, everything hurts, and it&#x27;s easy to feel like all those institutions are evil. But that&#x27;s just you Richard. For most people, Facebook isn&#x27;t much of a threat.
评论 #9204748 未加载
cddotdotslash大约 10 年前
Yes, Facebook tracks you and complies with government requests in the countries it operates in. Is anything new or is the author just spreading FUD?
评论 #9201678 未加载
revicon大约 10 年前
While I agree w&#x2F; some of the points Stallman makes, essays like this that rely on hyperbole to rile up readers turn me off and detract from the issues the author is trying to bring attention to.<p>One example: Stallman states &quot;Facebook&#x27;s mobile app snoops on SMS messages&quot; and links to this article: <a href="http://www.efytimes.com/e1/fullnews.asp?edid=128859" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.efytimes.com&#x2F;e1&#x2F;fullnews.asp?edid=128859</a><p>&quot;... during installation, the Facebook mobile app for Android platform seeks certain &#x27;permissions&#x27; with the latest update going a step ahead in asking users to allow the app &#x27;Read your text messages (SMS or MMS)&#x27;.&quot;<p>So during installation (on android), Facebook is asking permission to access SMS, which you can choose to enable or not. This is a far cry from his statement that &quot;Facebook&#x27;s mobile app snoops on SMS messages.&quot;<p>There are good points in this essay, but the amount of alarmism mixed in makes it much harder to sift through.
评论 #9201811 未加载