互联网与文化stallman.org
不该使用（被使用于）Facebook 的理由
Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
2013 — 2018，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是 Richard Stallman 个人网站上一篇列举“不要使用 Facebook（即不要被 Facebook 利用）”理由的文章。他从自由软件、隐私和监控等角度批评 Facebook，认为使用它意味着把自己的数据与自由交给一家不尊重用户的公司。文章立场鲜明，是早期科技界反思社交媒体巨头权力的代表性文本。
为什么经久不衰：随着社交媒体巨头对隐私和公共话语的控制日益加深，Stallman 对 Facebook 的批评仍具警示意义，值得今天重新审视平台权力与个人自由的关系。
HN 评论精选
批评 Stallman 用“useds”这类文字游戏削弱了论证可信度，显得像在向同温层布道而非说服他人。
如果有人不能正常表达观点，而是扭曲自己所用的语言来支持观点，就很难让人觉得可信。例子一：有人试图说服我投共和党，逐条比较共和党与民主党的立场，但每次提到“Democrat”都说成“Democrap”或“Dumbocrat”。这不让我觉得他聪明，反而让我觉得他把我当傻子，以为能用这种幼稚手段操纵我；也让我觉得他不是通过理解对立观点形成理念，而是为想象中的敌对部落编造稻草人，由部落主义而非思想驱动。例子二：Stallman 坚持用“useds”而不是“users”来指 Facebook 用户。我懂这个梗，但这不让我觉得他机智，反而让我觉得他不靠稻草人就没法推理，这让人质疑他所有观察，显得他不尊重本想说服的人，只是在向同温层布道。这不是孤立事件，而是他主要的修辞手法。
mwfunk查看英文原文
If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap" or "Dumbocrat" or "Dumbocrap". That does not make me think they are clever wordsmiths; rather, that makes me think that they think I'm an idiot and that they think they can actually manipulate me with such silliness. It also makes me think they arrived at their own philosophy not by trying to understand opposing views, but by inventing their own strawmen for whatever tribe they imagine they are opposed to. It makes me think they are driven by tribalism rather than ideas. Example 2: well, here, RMS' insistence on using the word "useds" rather than "users" when referring to people who are on Facebook. Yeah, I get it. Ha ha ha. It doesn't make me think you're clever, it makes me think you literally do not possess the capacity to reason about anything without invoking strawmen. It calls into question every single observation you are making. It makes it sound like you don't respect the people you are supposedly trying to convince, and are instead just enjoying preaching to your choir. It's not like an isolated incident, it is literally his primary rhetorical device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades. Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It's so frustrating because he does have some (some) very insightful and constructive ideas about a lot of things, and could be such a positive contributor to the world, but it's like he wants to alienate his non-choir audience right out of the gate. It's like he's terrified of actually engaging with people that are not already 100% (not 99.9%, he demands 100%) on his side. He is right about some (some) things, but so many, many people will never know it because he wants to shoot himself in the foot as soon as possible.
赞同 Stallman，认为社交媒体不可持续，主张用自建网站加 RSS 替代中心化平台。
Stallman 是我的英雄。所有社交媒体都很糟糕，都不可能从中盈利，我打赌它们最终都会失败。Facebook 不是靠社交媒体赚钱，而是靠附加业务。任何想做社交博客的人都该有自己的网站（wordpress.com 免费）并支持 RSS，让喜欢其内容的人能关注。RSS 不受任何公司控制，这才是互联网的社交媒体方式。稍微跑题：我读到扎克伯格账户被黑是因为他在多个服务上用“dadada”当密码。人们称他天才，但他似乎并不那么天才。
simbalion查看英文原文
Stallman is my hero. All social media is terrible, and all of it is impossible to profit from, and I bet all of it will eventually fail. Facebook doesn't make any money from social media, they make money from side businesses that are tacked onto their social media platform. Anyone who is interested in social blogging should have their own website (wordpress.com is free) with RSS support so people who like what you write can follow your posts. RSS is not controlled by any corporation. That is the internet way of doing social media. this is slightly off-topic but I read Zuckerberg's accounts got hacked because he used 'dadada' as a password on multiple services. People have called him a genius, he does not appear to be that exactly.
用亲身经历说明退出 Facebook 会错过社会活动，因为组织者和企业已把 Facebook 页面当作唯一渠道。
几个月前我还是个“used”（用户），刚退出。我喜欢越野跑，每年尽量参加5到7场比赛。今年我完全错过了两场，因为不再混在圈子里。组织者连网站或邮件列表都没有，只有一个 Facebook 页面。然后我意识到企业也一样，似乎无视自己把品牌和受众的控制权全交给了 Facebook。总之，Stallman 又对了。
bikamonki查看英文原文
I was a used a few months ago until I just quit. I enjoy trail running and time-permitting I try to do 5-7 races per year. This year I totally missed 2 races b/c I was not in the loop anymore. Organizers don't even have a website or newsletter anymore, just a FB page. Then I realized this is happening to businesses as well. They seem to ignore the fact that they are giving FB full control over its brand/audience. Anyway, Stallman is right, again.
质疑 Stallman 在隐私和自由问题上的权威，认为其观点简单化、幼稚，并以 Facebook 实名制等为例反驳。
我真不理解为什么人们如此重视 Stallman 在这些问题上的意见。我几乎不同意他关于这些话题的所有文章。没错，他是了不起的程序员，对现代操作系统和我们使用的工具贡献巨大，这里的人还爱提这点（“什么——你居然不知道 Stallman？丢人！你怎么敢批评他？”）。但这能让他在 Facebook、隐私或自由上的意见更正确吗？不能。就像我不会听博尔特教兴奋剂背后的生物机制，我也看不出为什么 Stallman 在这些事上被认为那么正确。在我看来，他对个人自由被 Amazon、Google、Facebook 等侵犯的论述过于简单化、幼稚。世界不是黑白分明，他显然不理解许多公司的整体意义。Facebook 要求实名不是因为顶层有个“邪恶先生”阴谋窃取你的自由，而是因为这样能带来更好的社交网络。他对 AirBnB 的描述也很荒谬：“AirBnB 要求你运行非自由软件（一个应用或 JavaScript），把你放进大哥哥容易获取的数据库（就像酒店）。”这是个极愚蠢的论点，因为任何想提供服务的可行公司……
paulsecwhatt查看英文原文
I honestly don't understand why people value Stallman's opinions on these matters so highly. I completely disagree with him on essentially everything he writes about these topics. Granted, he'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 ("what - you DON'T KNOW WHO STALLMAN IS? SHAME? HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE HIM?") Does this make his opinion on Facebook or privacy or freedom any more correct or valid? No. Just like I wouldn't listen to Usain Bolt if he were trying to teach me the biological mechanisms behind doping, I can't see why Stallman's opinion is considered so correct in these matters. 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'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's not because theres some "Mr. Evil" at the top level plotting to steal your freedom, it's because it leads to a better working social network. Just his description of AirBnB is ridiculous: "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)." That'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 "infringe" on those two idiotic requirements. TL;DR. Just because he did something amazing in one field/area, doesn't mean he is not spewing complete BS. For a similar example, see: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如今电脑上几乎所有操作在感知上都比 1983 年更慢（2017）
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
2017 年的推文串认为，尽管计算机硬件比 1983 年快得多，日常操作的感知速度却常常更慢：启动、界面响应和网络应用被层层抽象、动画、后台检查与网络依赖拖累。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2017–2020twitter.com网站肥胖危机
The Website Obesity Crisis
Maciej Cegłowski（idlewords）的经典演讲文稿《网站肥胖症危机》，批评现代网页越来越臃肿：动辄数 MB 的 JavaScript、追踪脚本和广告，把本可以轻…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2016–2021idlewords.com编辑精选亚马逊那本标价 23,698,655.93 美元的苍蝇书
Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies
博文讲的是亚马逊上一本关于果蝇的二手书被标到 23,698,655.93 美元。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022michaeleisen.org浏览器 User-Agent 字符串的历史
History of the browser user-agent string (2008)
2008 年的经典文章用戏谑的“创世纪”口吻，讲述浏览器 User-Agent 字符串如何从简单的标识演变成层层叠加的伪装：浏览器为了绕过按 UA 分发的网站检测，纷纷把自己伪装…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2012–2022webaim.org编辑精选最后的问题——艾萨克·阿西莫夫
The Last Question - Isaac Asimov
阿西莫夫最著名的短篇科幻小说《最后的问题》的在线全文。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2009–2019multivax.com编辑精选