On 25.07.2017 22:22, Max Mehl wrote: > # mray [2017-07-25 22:02 +0200]: >> On 25.07.2017 21:44, mray wrote: >>> Reaching people isn't the end goal. Just like market share isn't. >>> We are about freedom. What if I asked FSFE to tweet its take on using >>> twitter? Wouldn' the honest tweet be: >>> >>> "You should not use twitter >>> as it is a walled garden and >>> proprietary software." > > No doubt, Twitter is a proprietary product, and people shouldn't be > forced to use it (if they choose to do so it's their free decision but > they should know about the consequences). I hope I never implied that > the FSFE might have a different opinion. > >> Turns out I don't have to wait for this as the FSFE website says: >> "Some services may be Free Software unfriendly and harm your privacy." > > For reference: this text links to the wiki page > <https://wiki.fsfe.org/Advocacy/ProprietaryWebServices> > >> I guess the unfriendly harming refers to twitter and facebook, less to >> GNUsocial and Diaspora. My impression was there was **no doubt** about >> harm being done. Aren't we framing it a bit opportunistic here? > > Good point. While I'm certain that Facebook and Twitter are harmful to > its users' privacy, I'm not sure about Reddit or HackerNews. That's why > at the top of the wiki page there is: > > *Attention*: This page is far from perfect and it needs your help to > improve it. Furthermore, the lists of alternatives are incomplete > probably. > So please help us gathering more information about these services. But > even if we had more information we could never be sure that using > Diaspora or GNU Social doesn't harm a user's privacy because much of it > depends on a pod's administrator. And in my opinion, the "may harm" > wording provokes some kind of critical thinking: a social network user > should never feel too confident, even if an organisation like FSFE told > her that service A or B is safe. Would you understand the current > wording the same way? If not, what would you propose instead? > > Best, > Max >
Services that could potentially be harmful aren't the issue. It is about not explicitly stating that we know some of them *are definitively* harmful. Yet all we say is: "Be vigilant, somewhere danger is lurking!" Doing the right thing and call out the "bad players"would reveal the issue at hand: We literally show alternatives but refuse to give up using the harmful ones. What message does that send? -Robert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
