Sorry to rehash an "old" thread. I didn't see any conclusion posted, so I thought I'd just send a +1 to bzg
El Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:47:02PM +0200, Bastien Guerry deia: > (I'm just a member of this list, not a member of the FSFE, which goals > I strongly support though.) > +1 (and not very active even reading, it seems). > > I think FSFE should play a role model in not using proprietary > platforms at all. Let supporters or other people relay the messages > there if they are there, but don't step there. > +1. For me messages are difficult to understand if people don't do what they say. So if part of the message is not to use software X I think it's easier when those saying it don't use it. Also one volunteer may already be using some service and not minding doing some outreach there, but what happens if the volunteer moves on ? Do you want your organization to have a requirement for volunteers to do stuff you preach not to do ? The moment an organization opens an account in one of those not recommended services you are assuming there will always be one or other (sufficiently trusted) member willing to do work that the ideology of the organization recommends not doing. For this reason alone I'd consider easier to just post elsewhere and have any volunteers willing to do that (why?) to repost on unrecommended services from their personal accounts. Also I don't understand how can you use those services only a little. How do you stop discussions developing there, from something you posted meaning to direct people out of them ? What if the content other users post there have more value than what you posted ? Of course you can't stop people using whatever they want, but posting to a service is contributing to it, giving value to it, and so helping it. If your identity has any value at all (as in somebody may ever want to get in touch with you), being reachable in a service is also contributing value to that service. I don't see how it can be avoided while using it at all. Yes, I understand it would be worse if no content would ever be posted outside that service, but that sounds extreme (even if some organizations may do it). Also in theory if part of your message is against some centralized service, it is the nature of the centralized service to be easily able to stop any of your activities in their service because it is centrally controlled by them. So your campaign should always be switched off by the very social network management in a more or less obvious way before it has any chance of reaching your goal. It should stay there only as long as it's irrelevant. At least I wouldn't assume social network managers don't know about their social network. They likely know the most effective censorship, tuning down or depriorisation to apply in any situation so that the impact in their service is as small as desirable (to them). Of course being irrelevant is already likely simply because of the amount of messages you'll be able to post in comparison with the total number of messages moving through such huge networks, before you start considering whether the infrastructure owner will decide anything on what opinions to favour on their service. And yes, whether or not you post to proprietary services somebody may post something there and give you a lot of traffic/sales/whatever, but counting on that when deciding where to spend effort sounds to me like buying lottery tickets with the organization budget. But of course if the real ideology was something like it is fine to use Facebook as long as you browse it with a free browser, then nothing of what I said makes sense. So it might have to do with how much important you think the stance against those services is compared with the rest of ideology you want to preach. I happen to think it is quite central and hard to achieve coherency without it, but there might be other views. On the argument that that's where people are, well, I don't know, but I think each online community creates its group identity or ends up being follwed by some kind of people, just like every pub attracts different people and people is more likely to go there because of the people they find there than maybe the music or drinks (I don't mean these are independent things). So pretending outreach should happen where there is more people sounds to me like pretending missionaries should go preach in some sex&drugs&Rock&roll festival because that's where people most need them to explain where the nearest church is... Maybe there's some strategy between that and preaching to the choir ? (but hey, if they like the music they may want to go to festivals anyway...). In other words maybe people go to Twitter, Facebook and so on to learn about cute cats, gossip and friends holidays and simply don't want to listen to philosophical arguments there. Some may be just philosophically/socially/politically/intellectually inclined and just ignorant that there is internet outside social networks, but maybe there are so few of them as festival goers wishing to start a monacal life if they just found a helpful missionaire, after being turned down by someone they just fell in love with. I mean I wouldn't go looking for advice on regaining control of my computing in a centralized social network, but maybe that's just me... (in fact I've been asked once by someone whether she could trust a web on free software because she saw centralized social service icons there and thought it might taint its credibility). Sorry for the length, I honestly meant to send a +1 only... :( _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
