Reasons Not to Use Google (2015)
stallman.org
stallman.org
So I have been saving and indexing every page of my browsing history and bookmarks for the past 3-4 years. I have a local copy of wikipedia/stackoverflow and offline docs via Zeal. The only time I need google these days is for casual map location/distance queries. I am too lazy to type out the details of my setup but it works quite well.
I point people at this link and the associated search project for similar ideas - http://aurelieherbelot.net/how-small-is-the-world-wide-web-r...
Initially the only thing that I missed out on and struggled with was news (cause at the time google news had been my default homepage for a while). After trying all kinds of url/keyword blocking at various levels (browser/host file/router) I am finally down to 2 hours of internet a day.
Why am I doing all this - cause the web today (including hacker news) is just wasting my time. Tim Wu makes the case much better than I could here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xm-1CoAuw8
But, practicality aside, and sometimes childish tone aside (e.g. derogatory names for companies) here's what really bothers me: the framing of this as a moral issue.
I can get behind the idea that non-free code might be a problem, sometimes. I can get behind the idea that we should, in some situations, strive to have non-free code. But why is this a moral issue at all? Why can't reasonable people get together and decide that proprietary code makes sense for some situations, and that doesn't make them or the people using the code morally wrong?
I have a hard time with people whose shtick is mostly "appeal to emotions".
If you agree that these two are automatically derived from basic moral principles – control over yourself, and the right to ownership – then you also have to agree that closed source products, and SaaS, are morally problematic.
That's not the argument Stallman actually makes here though. Note that he doesn't list 'propriety software running on Google's servers' as a reason not to use Google, even though that has far more of an an impact on your ability to control information about you (or to modify the software that you are using) then the comparatively small amount of client side javascript that runs when you use Google.
The general FSF/Stallman position is that non-free software is fine as long as you access it over a network. So clearly control over your own data isn't why RMS is morally opposed to non-free software.
No?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
And maybe it isn't morally acceptable in some circumstances. Like when transparency is required in order to facilitate accountability and peace of mind.
It's immoral to have closed-source voting machines. But is it immoral to rely on closed-source search algorithms? The answer to that is less obvious. Either way, moral issues affect code all the time.
For a voting machine, I'd say it is immoral to have voting systems that are unreliable or unverifiable. The problem of making a reliable and verifiable voting system is mostly orthogonal to the open/closed nature of the software in voting machines.
For open-source voting machines, how does the voter know that the binary code running on the machine they are using is actually compiled, unmodified, from the right source? Even if they can somehow determine that, there is still the possibility of bugs.
To get reliable and verifiable voting system, what you need to do is design the system so that if the voting machine software does not count votes correctly that will be detected elsewhere in the system and can be corrected.
An example of how to do this is David Chaum's "Punchscan" system, or it's successor, Chaum and Ron Rivest's "Scantegrity II" system.
Bullshit. The problem is voting machines in general. They are too complex and you cannot observe how they work. This opens up elections to get manipulated regardless if open source is used or not. This is also not a moral problem, but a technological problem. The moral problem is in setting the requirements, the technological problem is in solving them.
What I do not understand in regards to voting computers, is why you need the computer part anyway. If you want fast counting, punch cards suffice.
That said, RMS's stuff is showing up in a few posts today, and framing as a moral issue is certainly a large part of his standard toolkit. Considering any situation from an ethical viewpoint tends to make my eyes roll and skin crawl (ooh, the moral dimensions of public hygiene? yes please!), but appealing to hearts and minds is pretty basic old-school rhetorical technique.
If nothing else, coming from a technical background, it's occasionally useful to come at the problems from a different, squishier, direction.
This is almost always patently false ... A user chooses to submit themselves to the power of the program's developer in exchange for the utility provided by the program. We do similar things all the time in society:
- If I want to drive a car, I submit myself to the "programmer" who decided that the "Enter" key (gas pedal) would be operated by my foot and be on the floor.
- If I want to drive a car, I also submit myself to a myriad of driving conventions and laws that I can't change: I should probably drive on the correct side of the road for the country I'm in and if I don't stop at red-lights I'll quickly be t-boned.
These are in no way moral decisions and since many of his warnings have to do with privacy and security issues, I applaud him for raising the warning. I don't however think that he helps himself by being so black and white on issues. It's far too easy to point out hypocrisies, especially in non-software areas.
I don't know him personally, but his being top wheel of the FSF has skewed his reality. I cannot remember where I heard it, but I believe he is quoted (heavily paraphrasing here) along the lines of, "I may be fighting a losing fight, but it's all I can do, and I won't stop until I'm dead."
Practicality is the ultimate deciding factor at its core. Practicality decides whether you use a GPL-based license or the Apache license. Practicality decides whether you choose to avoid a website because of non-free Javascript. Practicality decides whether you can eat that muffin and switch gears on the road, and so on. It is a bit like using secure services and utilizing OpSec. Where do you draw the line between convenience and security? Where does it stop being practical and where does it matter to stick to a principle?
Maybe he is just aging, and his brain is in an infinite loop. As I said, I do not know the man myself. But not having a clear focus of how life is for a majority of people can be a huge factor.
A well mannered "normal" person would have never written the GPL and would have tolerated software that didn't match their politics.
The fringe provides a mandatory function in steering the cultural ship.
Early advocates for things like minimum wages or child labor laws were Molotov cocktail throwing anarchists. Early women suffragists were equally way out there - even by quite permissive modern standards.
Subversives are necessary in order to subvert and often make the world a better place.
The era of nonviolent Ghandi-style protest hadn't begun so violent worker insurrection was a common element. The railroad strike, for instance, had over 100 workers killed and people feared a bloody worker-run revolution like the Paris Commune of 1871.
The Civil War, which was largely about labor, was recent so the idea of a 2nd labor war wasn't implausible.
A president was assassinated by a unionist steel worker. Wall Street and the LA Times, an anti-union paper at the time, was bombed. Clandestine bombs were sent to dozens of industrialists and anti labor congresspeople.
The modern equivalent would be if Obama was killed, Fox News and 740 Park Avenue was bombed, and the Koch brothers had to dodge constant assassination plots by various "fight for $15" people. The 1900-era version of that actually happened.
So the struggle for the minimum wage wasn't just the whim of a supreme court justice or the musings of armchair intellectuals, it was a bloody multi generational insurrection by syndicalists, unionists, anarchists, and marxists.
Even leading up to the 1938 ruling you had the memorial day massacre, hilo massacre, martial law being declared during teamster strikes, and machine gun companies being called to fight with the national guard, all within 2 years of the Wagner Act.
I think a fundamental portion of civil society is owning the notion that you must strive for the rights of those you like and love least. One day you might be on their side of the railroad tracks and finally get their angst.
And certainly for many-- even if they don't embrace his positions with full-throated absolutism, maybe they'll be floating a little more in the direction of his idealisim than it would have without him having him there. And if so, and clearly his principled influence has been influential (and considerably so) for decades, that's a good thing, right?
What would the would look like without his constant "impractical" point of view...? Very different, and more scary, I think.
That depends heavily on the definition of "bigger picture". You seem to think practicality is most important, while for someone like rms, the bigger picture is in the realm of ethics and human rights.
That said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
There are many other variables that would have to apply, I know. But for the sake of argument it is just focusing on the conventional problem of (paying for) everyday living.
Now what exactly you see as the "bigger picture" mat depend on your opinions about the subject...
I would like to add that I think Richard Stallman is doing the following:
1: Setting an idealistic example by living what he preaches 2: Dedicating his life to making a world where choosing Free Software is as practical as choosing Proprietary software via the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation.
This is pretty clearly a completely incorrect statement. Everything Stallman says is bigger picture. All your arguments are about the details.
I always value Stallman's commitment, but it's often impractical to maintain while being a productive member of society.
Keeps me considering the possibility of freer alternatives though, and I find it valuable for that reason alone.
It can be occupy protesters who own iPhones to coordinate or open source purists who use Slack to join projects they love or environmentalists filling their gas tank. In the end, there has to be a more practical strategy that enables a person to fight for the world they want while living in the world that exists.
That is inexcusable, though.
There are more alternatives than you can count, if you use Matrix, Mattermost, some webirc system with included bouncer, or whatever.
edit- In this case, the open source purist has to join Slack if only to beg people to go to IRC, a move that is at that point more energy than the community will think worth the purists principled gain.
I don't share his definition of freedom applied to software, simple as that. I also don't think most of the society shares his values, i often get the idea that he lives in a bubble. Like somebody preaching abstinence instead of birth-control.
I get that "free software" has advantages, but for me it also has disadvantages and therefore can and should not replace all the "unfree software".
We should consider that maybe the Internet really has become a mass surveillance tool, a privacy issue, a billboard and maybe even a distraction from the real issues humans face today.
We might have to except the fact that Google is now, just another major corporation trying to grow infinitely and is less concerned about what it takes to stay at the top, they're walking an ethical tight rope of their own making, especially with regards to supporting the TPP.
I use alternatives frequently now and I feel better for it. DuckDuckGo, TOR, Diconnect.me etc.
We as tech focused people could be doing more to protect users online privacy and I applaud Stallman for having the courage to speak out about these issues, they are important.
Nobody on Earth* will restrict themselves to using only websites, operating systems, and software and hardware packages which are fully free and open source. That would be insanely restrictive, and generally speaking -- at the risk of being blunt -- you'd be resorting to consistently using lower-quality, less-supported software a lot of the time†.
I'm sure he's got some valid points, but his approach to modern technology based on them essentially involves reverting back to the days of the extremely early internet, where the actual person-to-person networking was restricted to mailing lists and IRC; two formats which the majority of internet users today likely wouldn't be crazy about compared to the alternatives.
* who wants to be a normal and productive member of modern society
† not that there isn't great F/OSS software out there -- Linux and BSD are absolute wonders compared to Windows, but a lot of the time it's like comparing the GIMP to Photoshop -- there's just more refinement in a piece of software developed by thousands of paid, dedicated, full-time developers over two or so decades.Maybe it's just me, but being a "normal" member of any society isn't very appealing.
It's a political choice.
Granted it was much easier to avoid proprietary software around 10 years ago before SaaS and smartphones took off. I think the community has been slow to adapt to these changes, but that isn't a reason to give up hope.
I think the OP's GIMP-vs-Photoshop example made that distinction clear. One can simultaneously consider GIMP to be "high quality software" and also "lowER-quality" than Photoshop.
I wouldn't be surprised to find a decades old USENET post that hits all the same points about RMS that you (and others in this thread) bring up. RMS's distance from reality and staunch commitment to principles has been a feature, not a bug.
Don't get me wrong, I also believe that the idealized free-software world is a utopia that we're very unlikely to see. However, RMS's efforts have resulted in (and will continue to produce) a tremendously positive impact for humanity.
But this doesn't mean that what he is doing is bad for society or not important. I respect his work and what he has achieved, i just don't share the vision. It's often important to be somewhat crazy to achieve greatness.
You have similar examples in other social movements; second-wave feminism, for example, borrowed not lightly from radical feminists who wondered to what extent the female condition was determined by biology (and especially as their means of reproductive production), and to what extent cultural; though impractical then and impractical now to take some of the extreme measures some were advocating, they open a possibility and frame discussions.
The one great thing, which RMS tries to make clear to everyone, that you can be free only if you are able to restrict youself. The world works such a way that you have a choice: either to have self discipline and free or to be disciplined by world. The more self disciplined people are in the world, the more freedom would be in the world.
Not everyone is ready to restrict herself to make world more free. But someone do it. RMS is the ideological leader for such a people. Like Dalay Lama or some priests of other religions. At least we can look at them and compare they life with ours. Compare and choose consiously.
Ah, and there is more then two possible choices. You are free to choose some tradeoff between sides which is acceptable to you personally.
According to the link he gave to Google's statement on TPP, here are the three provisions as described by Google:
#1> The Internet has revolutionized how people can share and access information, and the TPP promotes the free flow of information in ways that are unprecedented for a binding international agreement. The TPP requires the 12 participating countries to allow cross-border transfers of information and prohibits them from requiring local storage of data. These provisions will support the Internet’s open architecture and make it more difficult for TPP countries to block Internet sites -- so that users have access to a web that is global, not just local.
#2> The TPP provides strong copyright protections, while also requiring fair and reasonable copyright exceptions and limitations that protect the Internet. It balances the interests of copyright holders with the public’s interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works -- enabling innovations like search engines, social networks, video recording, the iPod, cloud computing, and machine learning. The endorsement of balanced copyright is unprecedented for a trade agreement. The TPP similarly requires the kinds of copyright safe harbors that have been critical to the Internet’s success, with allowances for some variation to account for different legal systems.
#3> The TPP advances other important Internet policy goals. It prohibits discrimination against foreign Internet services, limits governments’ ability to demand access to encryption keys or other cryptographic methods, requires pro-innovation telecom access policies, prohibits customs duties on digital products, requires proportionality in intellectual property remedies, and advances other key digital goals.
#1 and #3 sound like things that Stallman would like. Anyone happen to know what he dislikes about them?
I believed in Google because I believe in "don't be evil", but we're passed that now, regrettably.
I don't mind companies use non-free software, but I do mind if they do whatever they want with their users on a legal basis.
Not to mention government services, built with .NET, which yeah - you are obliged to use.
Now if you don't like being tracked at all time 1: enable privacy options for your Google account 2: avoid using Google Play and 3: start using duckduckgo
If you enable all your Google account privacy options - can you be sure that they do what they say they are doing? How do you know that? Can you be sure your information isn't being intercepted along the way?
If you trust Google then fine.
But if there is even the slightest amount of doubt then someone you trust (preferably you yourself) needs to audit the code and every pathway the data travels along before you can be absolutely sure.
Sure you may 100% trust someones open code, but if you don't have any insight in their backend once again it comes down to who you trust the most.
And why RMS only uses computers with free software firmware.
That has always been the goal for a mass surveillance machine like that which is very close to government.
And that tells you that it's time to fight back even harder.
That's true but it's not evil to offer nonfree programs. It's my choice to run it or not.
Okay, thanks for your opinion RMS.