Paul/ > Discouraging people from using FB for example can be restated as > 'encouraging people to use FS'. >> Not necessarily.
The (logical:-/) *necessity* of leaving FB to use FS wasn't a point I was making as far as I can see, and I wouldn't be keen to pursue it because with more and more software being made available of all kinds the situation clearly isn't a 'zero-sum game' (so to speak). Human ingenuity I find has a canny knack of redefining things (and 'development' most often is in favour of the dominant idea - in this case - 'global capital') so this was more about the definition/articulation of FSFE's goals under such uncertain terms and conditions. I wanted to illustrate that the problem with the way the FSFE goals are often articulated dogmatically - in this negative way - is not consistent with the four freedoms whereas the second positive goal may also not be in the eyes of those that (for example) believe that FSFE's aims should only be accomplished using FS - because it's the only way to avoid critical self-defeat. However, the positive form does benefit from allowing the promotion of FSFE goals on both non-free and free platforms, which from the perspective of the practicalities of political campaigning for FS will I predict will be more effective simply because of the 'visibility' aspect. The reality is of course we need (and have) individuals that promote both versions and that's fine by me. But on the narrow question about the FSFE political campaigning methods - any policy on that ought not to extend to our individual free choice to refuse those methods, likewise if the FSFE were to adopt a policy of refusing non-free platforms (I think like the FSF?) I wouldn't expect that choice to extend to individual FSFE members own choices which may be different in some cases. I am sure none of the FS campaigning orgs are considering banning people for using non-free software? I hope not, but that would be the consequence of maintaining a very hard line on topics like this I think. So, the confusion is that a policy decision made by the FSFE ought to be made on what's best for the FSFE, not best for any individual member. Hopefully this potential conflict will often match both - but on the issue of promoting FSFE on FB, I don't think there is much to be said for refusing to engage on FB at that level while this ought not to be seen as a signal or endorsement of the platform. If it sounds illogical/inconsistent/confusing that's because reality is just like this. The individual campaigning around that will have to be creative... a number of tactics could be used I think for people expert in PR... >> So, people are not going to start using Free Software just because they realise that being on Facebook is a bad idea [...] Indeed, that's one permutation. Another one is people are not going to start using Free Software - full stop. We have to get used to that reality, over-zealous optimism for our cherished FS may drive some people away, people that would otherwise stay and listen to us perhaps? So, as a general rule I don't think it is controversial to suggest a lot of people who become interested in FS eventually attenuate their use of FB to almost zero so the pressure must be on getting people interested in Free Software surely, whether it's on FB or at our local brand of supermarket? While I applaud those that entertain the idea that we should only talk about FS in publicly owned spaces like parks, I'm happy that people are prepared to loosen their principles and talk about FS in the marketplace of non-free too... I see sofware use as an 'ecology' not so much as an ideology. There are some in the FS movement that have a zero tolerance on proprietary software as an ideological principle. Often (but not always) I agree there is good reason for this, especially in public administration, health, education and possibly a few other sectors. However, there are plenty of scenarios where proprietary software isn't ideal but may be tolerable... social media may be one - but it depends on a lot of other factors - the moral and legislative context of individual consent vs. public health and safety and so forth. > I don't feel morally obliged to share and share-alike the mobile > computer game I made for my daughter, but when I develop software for > an educational establishment my sense of obligation ramps up a lot. >> These are two different things, since you presumably don't share the game with anyone else at all. If you don't, you are actually touching upon the topic of creative works and why people might not want to share everything they create: a matter that some "free culture" people fail to understand. Yes, ontologically I agree my daughter is very different to an educational establishment which is why i gave them as an example. I think these two things demand different approaches to software licensing and within the four freedoms this right to develop software privately has to be included. Private property rights then seem to be contained within the four freedoms and I have yet to encounter anyone who is able to convince me otherwise, but I am open to being persuaded. >> would you withhold the source code from your daughter if she were to get into programming at that level? Who knows? My point is that to be morally consistent (if that is important - and I think it is) individuals (partnerships, cooperatives, non-profits and commercial companies) must have that right to create software and keep it secret under the four freedoms as a matter of principle - something many FS advocates don't agree with it seems. >> Arguably, the primary message should be about those needs and which Free Software solutions can address them, not about "alternatives" to proprietary services. Because putting the emphasis on proprietary services risks making them the benchmark and Free Software the pale imitation. (People really do love their famous brand names, sadly.) yes, that might be better... not sure... although 'needs' is still very consumer-oriented? Software development for me ought to be studied in the context of the humanities as well as STEM since arts graduates often come better equipped with social critiques than maths graduates? >> I doubt that Facebook became successful by telling everyone how bad MySpace was. I would have to question the deployment of the words 'became successful' here - 'made a lot of money' might be more accurate? >> I also imagine that Facebook probably didn't have an account on MySpace for such purposes, either. Good point, although I don't think it's instructive to compare the motivations of the advocates of FB with the motivations of FS advocates and plenty of reasons to think the motivations are divergent and possibly antithetical? >> "Here is a great solution for sharing news with your family and friends. You can modify and share it as you like, and isn't it nice that it doesn't spy on you or sell your personal information?" Yes of course, but the thread here (as far as I understand it) is quite a narrow scope - it's about if we think it's okay for the FSFE to post those messages on FB or not. My current view is it is NOT inconsistent with the FSFE aims/goals, and it is advantageous in many ways to increase exposure to the FS message. I think posting creatively and sensitively on non-free platforms like FB and twitter is an important part of the FSFE's marketing mix and should be carried out and reviewed annually - until such time as it becomes ineffective/redundant/.../... (insert negative adjective) I suppose the remaining question is: What does everyone else think? /m
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
