# mray [2017-07-25 22:36 +0200]:
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!"
I get your point and start to believe that we could rephrase it to: Some services are Free Software unfriendly and harm your privacy. [Learn more]. While installing these buttons we also thought of somehow marking problematic services. But we felt uncomfortable of defining a measurement for good and bad services, also because we don't have enough information.
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?
I don't know if I understand you correctly but these are two separate issues: informing the users, and limiting the connection to problematic networks. We don't blame people who use proprietary software or servicesbut they should know about the consequences.
And I don't consider these buttons as advertisement for FB or Twitter but for D*, GS, Reddit, and HackerNews mainly – internet users see (privacy-unfriendly) buttons to non-free networks all the time. Best, Max -- Max Mehl - Free Software Foundation Europe - Program Manager Contact and further information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl Private weblog: (blog.mehl.mx) | Private homepage: (mehl.mx) Support advocacy for Free Software: https://fsfe.org/donate
pgpiN2ma5qZMB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
