In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook
betabeat.com
betabeat.com
As are reporters who write about privacy issues with social media without first closing their Facebook accounts."
You know he's right, don't you?
Sometimes it's not so clear that things are so black and white. Just because I write about an issue doesn't mean I will first have to get on one side of it.
You don't need to be a vegan to write about animal cruelty, but you'd better be one to complain about it. (Assuming for the sake of the argument that eating meat causes animal cruelty.)
So, while you don't have to quit Facebook to write about its effects on privacy, you'd better quit if you want to complain about those effects.
(EDIT: I retract: other comments point out that acknowledging you contribute to a problem you complain about is sufficient for not being a hypocrite. While it would be better to just stop contributing to that problem, unilaterally deciding that often exposes you to the No Network Effect. So, you can't really be expected to stop first. That first-mover disadvantage is sometimes a deal-breaker. We need some coordination to avoid it. But it is important to acknowledge you're part of the problem. For if you don't, there is no hope.)
How would I recast your metaphor to be more like what Moglen is saying? No idea, since I think he's a crackpot and he's quite wrong, but it was fun thinking about it.
just because legalisation would improve the situation doesn't mean that people who continue to buy drugs illegaly are not also responsible for the problems in mexico.
a problem can have multiple causes, and multiple solutions. but that does not mean that you can choose one solution as the "correct" one and discard all the others.
the typical american who buys drugs cannot change the law, but they can stop buying drugs and that would reduce the problems. so if they choose not to do so then they have some moral responsibility for the violence in mexico. that is not removed because there are other possible solutions.
That's like saying an author who writes something that offends Islamists is responsible for any violence perpetrated on them, since they had the choice of not publishing.
The moral responsibility for acts of violence lies with those that commit them, or incite others to do so.
Frankly, I find his position ridiculous. He's essentially saying journalists have to be these beacons of virtue above everyone else if they want to report on bad things that are happening.
The reporter, similarly, is looking for fuel to blame the banks for their evil practices, when she herself is contributing to the flow of evil information.
I can understand his point about users being the problem - although that doesn't in any way excuse the banks - but criticizing her specifically is completely ridiculous.
It reminds me of how I hear people in my country commenting to each other about how nice is that politician because he rides a scooter instead of a Mercedes, while he and his party continue to sell out the country to big companies.
It's an irrelevant, stupid detail that detract from his position and makes him seem like an unreasonable person.
His point is not just that users are contributing to the problem, but that users REFUSE to believe they're contributing to the problem. It's the whole "a little bit can't hurt" excuse, which is why he used littering as a metaphor.
In the end it doesn't matter what she writes about the evil banks. It's impossible to stop them from using information YOU PUBLISHED against you. If you don't publish it, it can't be used against you. His further rant is against your friends publishing information about you that can be used against you.
So yeah, she can write her story about banks denying loans based on photos of your frequent trips to Vegas, but it's not going to help anybody because people will focus on the evil banks, and will still fail to grasp the concept of NOT PUBLISHING PERSONAL INFORMATION.
But unfortunatly I think he might be right... but well back to facebook for me, what's an socialmedia addict to do other than go find the next fix ;)
To quote it exactly: "You injure other people today also using social media. You’ve informed on them. You’ve created more records about them. You’ve added to the problems not of yourself but of other people. If it were as simple as just you’re only hurting yourself I wouldn’t bother pointing it out to you. See, that’s the difference, okay? The reason that this all works is that even when you know you’re hurting other people, you’re too selfish to stop. And there are hundreds of millions of people like you. That’s why it works."
As a qualification for reporting / thinking / writing on the issue -- no.
Moglen is saying that before Betabeat can report, they must agree with him. Which ignores the possibility, remote as it may be, that Eben Moglen could be wrong about something. And, the implications of the example he sets for others.
Respect for freedom of speech is more than insistence on a constitutional norm. It is an attitude of respect for the possibility that you might be wrong even in your strongest beliefs. Such respect is our surest protection against absolutism.
Moblen may think his intransigence adds urgency to his message, and it has gotten him a forum this time. But even so he's deteriorating the culture of free speech and thought, and free-riding on the maintenance of that culture by the maturity of others.
I have long been worried about the implications of friending everyone you know. If you have to go on the run, and everyone you've ever talked to for more than 15 minutes is listed on Facebook, you're not going to have many places to hide. I am "friends" with only a handful of people, mostly close family, which doesn't really expose any new relationships.
Not to forget the images tagged with your name ...
The most insidious thing that Facebook has done, is litter the web with their "Like" buttons. Oh sure, they're not the ones who have put up "Like" buttons around the web, all they've done is insist that websites who do want a "Like" button have to use file assets & scripts from their webserver.
Well, by tracking where the "Like" button gets loaded, they can tell what you've been watching out on the web, even if you don't touch the "Like" button. Loading the button is enough. And on that basis, anyone who's set their pages up to use the "Like" button is informing on you. And in turn, your very use of the web becomes part of Facebook's surveillance.
In fact, just thinking about it now ... why did I switch? I should try Firefox again.
What you want to know is that somewhere there’s a
regulator who might stop the bank. But you don’t want to
hear that the regulator we really need to call upon is
you, yourself.
He's half right. Banks are also the problem.
To him, the bank's position is obvious and unworthy of mention. The lack of PERSONAL responsibility is what leads to these kinds of disasters, and that's what people just don't get. Much like people don't want to feel responsible for the greed leading to and maintaining the crazy tort law system in the USA today.
Yes! Exactly that! Except in the case of Facebook your negligence hurts your neighbors.
You know what causes a real ecological disaster?
Washing Machines.
Yes, FUCKING washing machines.
They use too much of one of the worlds rarest resources (clean water), contribute to global warming and pollute the waste water with phosphates.
On the other hand, they have freed up half the worlds workforce from backbreaking manual labor and contributed to society enough that no less than Hans Rosling calls them the greatest invention of the industrial revolution[1]
Facebook allows companies to sell advertising and allows law enforcement to track you.
On the other hand, it allows quicker and easier communication than ever before, and contributed to the Arab Spring to the point where the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are known as "the Facebook revolutions" [2][3]
Convenience has costs, but who is Moglen to judge if those costs are worthwhile for everyone?
[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_... (watch this video - it's really good)
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/so-was...
[3] http://www.technologyreview.com/web/38379/
Edit: To all those claiming this is a strawman - it's not. Moglen failed to point out the benefits of social networking, and I'm using an analogy to show that most things have costs and benefits. Please don't get distracted into an argument about that.
I'd love to see people try and explain how Moglen is right about Twitter (which has much lower privacy costs than Facebook).
Let's look at another example of convenience that isn't being solved very well: my car.
My car is incredibly convenient. Often I'd rather drive than take the bus. And you can't beat it for hauling stuff around. Better than my bike, for sure.
Cars have freed up the world's pedestrians from footwrecking walking!
But there's a lot going on here. Cars, roads, the death of public transport (cf trolly cars in LA http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/la/historic/redcars/ ). America, at least, was sold on the car by businesses that had a vested interest in seeing the car succeed. Cities dismantled public transport systems at the behest of these same powerful lobbies.
And today our cities are outgrowths of the personal motor vehicle. (Electric cars don't solve anything here, it's still energy being produced).
While I think that you make a point worth considering, I believe that we should error on the side of suspicion when utility, or less nobly, convenience, comes at an initially small cost and is heavily promoted by... whom, exactly?
I worked in advertising long enough to look squarely to the data-finance industrial complex (tongue only partially in cheek when using that phrase) whenever personal information is involved.
Convenience has costs. Moglen may not have the right to judge but we need noisy people that remind us there is a problem.
On HN we sometime need people to remind us there are benefits, too.
Washing machines are tools. Facebook is a platform. If Mr. Moglen was attacking the postal service or mobile phones, you'd have a point. But he is talking about a centralized service that gives unprecedented power to the ones in control of the service and the jurisdictions it falls under.
I can stand in front of my washing machine and say, with total clarity, that I'm the only one in charge of it at that time. If I had a facebook account, there would be no such thing. And that doesn't even get to Mr. Moglens deeper point - that usage of facebook spreads the problem into your social graph.
As for the "facebook revolutions" you cite - that's quite a rosy picture you paint there. In reality, those services were used to track protesters and there have been coordinating handouts urging participants not to use social media for that reason. Furthermore, after these 'revolutions' have cooled down, it's still unclear what we will end up with. I would conclude that at most, those services served as catalysts and their convenience came at quite a cost indeed. But it's not Arab Youth + Facebook = Functioning Democracy.
Moglen pointed out all the problems with Facebook (and Twitter) without showing the benefits.
He was asked for the problems. It's not his job to advertise social networking services.
One of the big figures of Software Freedom is asked about the drawbacks of social networking services and you start your argument with saying that he doesn't talk about the benefits. And then you compare the drawbacks to the ecological damage of washing machines (with the recent advances in efficiency, nobody is making as strong a point against them as you are trying to force). Nope, sorry, that's a straw man. And a very weak one at that.
I think if anything, having those three big issues out there (privacy violations, tracking by government, careless spreading of the two into the social graph), Mr. Moglen would be correct to say that the cost is already too great to be weighed against with any benefits.
I don't think I misrepresented Moglen's position in anyway. He only spoke about the negative aspects of social networking, but nothing about the conveniences. Argument by analogy isn't a strawman.
I agree that recent advances in washing machines have improved them, and that the environmental impact of them is far outweighed by the convenience.
Indeed, that is my point.
For me - and many others - the convenience and advantages of social networking outweighs the costs. I make that decision in full knowledge of those costs, and I think it is fair to point out that there are advantages as well as costs.
Person A: Sunny days are good.
Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.
Problem: B has misrepresented A's claim by falsely suggesting that A claimed that only sunny days are good, and then B refuted the misrepresented version of the claim, rather than refuting A's original assertion.
The benefits of social networks are self evident - they enable communication in an unprecedented way. His argument is that the drawbacks he is talking about are unnecessary and dangerous and that some of the technology may seem useful, but is actually just thinly disguised non-social behavior ("keeping up" with somebody may border on "stalking"). You have not addressed any of his arguments while complaining that he didn't address points that nobody was discussing to begin with.
So yes, one more, final, time - your argument is a straw man.
That's like saying when Rick Santorum points out what he sees as problems with gay marriage no one can point out the benefits because it is a strawman.
That's ridiculous!
The premise of the article we are discussing was this:
"My editor wanted a quote from a privacy advocate, so I immediately thought of Eben “Spying for Free” Moglen, a militant digital privacy advocate, founder of the uber-secure personal server FreedomBox, and the inspiration for the decentralized social network Diaspora."
Eben Moglen was asked for his statement as a privacy advocate. There is nothing to be said about facebook in terms of being a privacy advocate. Except for maybe "sure wish they'd try some!". And that's the end of your argument right there.
Eben Moglen argues that facebook is bad because of the gross privacy violations it institutionalized. His argument is perfectly sound and coherent and doesn't need any forced "balancing" to be valid. He is not omitting any facts to make his argument.
You are welcome to argue against it, but you have instead chosen to act as though his argument is moot because he didn't make yours. That's not how arguments work.
Your 'Rick Santorum' point boggles the mind. Rick Santorum is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs. You could now attack a point completely unrelated or only superficially related to his rants about gay marriage and that would be a straw man. You could also, however, argue for or against his points with your own argument.
Moglen is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs.
You could now attack a point completely unrelated or only superficially related to his rants about gay marriage and that would be a straw man. You could also, however, argue for or against his points with your own argument.
This is true. Additionally, one could point out the good things about gay marriage. That's a perfectly reasonable approach.
Specific to the Moglen argument, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to argue against his points because I agree with a lot of them. However, I think the benefits are more important and I won't sit still and let only one side of the argument be presented.
How would you suggest I should present benefits of social networking without you calling me a troll or saying my argument is a strawman?
When you respond to a Santorum argument about the terrible things about gay marriage with a list of good things about gay marriage, you have accepted his arguments as true, and started a new discussion.
Seems like you finally got it! (Although I disagree that his beliefs are misguided.)
Moglen was stating his beliefs because he was asked for them. You created a straw man to argue against them.
You could have just said "I agree with Mr. Moglen on points X-Z, but I would like to weigh them against the benefits of social networks" - and then do that. That would clearly mark that you are opening your own line of reasoning instead of trying to forcibly claim them on the OP. Then, we could have that discussion together.
You must understand - I did not take exception to you trying to start that discussion, but it's a cheap shot to say that Mr. Moglen was the one who should have done so. It's perfectly reasonable to stand up for your own arguments without forcing them on another person. It was a particularly cheap shot because you did not offer anything in line with your argument except the washing machine argument which I found very weak for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
There are an infinite number of ways I could have responded, but I deliberately chose to use an analogy, and to express my anger about how Moglen presented a 100% negative view. I understand why you say that he didn't need to express anything positive about social networking, and I disagree. To me, one should always attempt to give an honest view on any subject. Moglen's 100% negative views are either wrong or dishonest. That make me angry.
Show me where I misrepresented Moglen's views in anyway. That's the definition of a strawman, and I object most strongly to your claim that I used one. Nor do I troll, take cheap shots or resort to personal attacks.
You say: "His argument isn't valid because he isn't talking about what is good about social networks".
Instead of addressing what he did talk about, you chose to talk about something he did not. And that's the definition of a straw man:
to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition
"What is bad about social networks?" != "Can you provide a balanced picture of social networks?"
The fact that you have not given a single word to actually discussing his statements (Oh, because you agree? Hmm...), except defending your initial argument (based on the olde and extremely valuable "because!"), actually not even responding to my critique of that argument, shows that you are not interested in the discussion, you are only interested in being right. You've made a mistake in your understanding of the article and made a bad argument against it that I and others clearly saw for what it is. Get over it.
Actually, I don't know why I bother anymore. If what I (and a couple other commenters) have said before doesn't convince you, I reckon nothing will.
See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1349229 "Diaspora team takes on Eben Moglen as informal advisor"
In this article he only presents the negatives.
You could make the same point more civilly.
They're certainly known as "Facebook revolutions" (or "Twitter uprisings" or whatever) by foreign media organisations looking for a gimmicky hook to hang a story on, but I honestly doubt that regular Tunisians and Egyptians really use that phrase themselves other than as talking heads when dealing with said media organisations.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that most people just call it "last year."
Wael Ghonim: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/egypt-facebook-revo...
Related anecdatum: I live in an ex-Soviet Republic. It is rare for someone here to actually say "The Foo Revolution"; instead people talk about "the early 90s" or "after independence".
(Also: your quote is taken from an interview with one of those foreign media organisations who had already decided that Facebook was the hook they were going to hang the story on.)
Secondly, the idea of wasting the "worlds rarest resources" is completely dependent on where you live. I, for example, live in a part of the world with a huge excess of clean water, and there is absolutely no sustainable way to export our water to those parts of the world that have a shortage of clean water. Building pipe lines to those parts of the world would be ridiculous expensive. Transporting it by truck would pollute excessively.
So if we didn't use this clean water all of it would just be transported by nature to ground water reservoirs, out in the ocean and get mixed with the salt water or evaporate into the atmosphere.
I won't go into the points about washing machines adding to global warming and pollution of the water, that could very well be true.
From an interview by an 17 year old Tunisian protester when asked how did social media influence the protesters actions:
"Only after we organized and burned down a third of the police stations in less than a day, foreign media asked us about these social media networks. By then it was already to late to use them, they where shut down. We kept burning the remaining police stations."
In the end, it all comes down to energy. If some countries would spend even a fraction of their defense budgets on solar, water, wind or fusion power research, we would be there in a jiffy. We could have had more energy than we could ever use by now. Our progress is much slower than it could be, because energy is kept scarce.
Even if energy were free, there'd still be the question of paying for the facilities to purify the water. The kinds of places where clean water is scarce now tend not to have much money, or much clout, with which to get such facilities built. More likely you'd get wealthy people wasting vaster quantities of clean water, while the poor remained without clean water despite the theoretically easy availability of the required water purification equipment.
You might as well say that scarcity of energy is the only
thing between us and free ponies for everyone.
The energy is there for the picking, but no country or company is trying hard enough. And why should they? What would they gain? That's the problem.
I also think his premise is a bit extreme... Social Media can be used recklessly, but so can many things. Suddenly people are saying that if your friends are on Facebook then you should get new friends... I must admit this sentiment sounds extremely reactionary and way over the top. We seem to be operating under the assumption that all information shared about another human being is potentially dangerous... Really? I'm pretty sure that most of what gets shared on Facebook is fairly innocuous, if not utterly mundane.
• for her and her site, a full-length story of the call, garnering inlinks and traffic
• for him, a detailed description of his views, totally beyond the original 'quote in a box' form-journalism role they wanted him to play
• for us, a discussion thread seeded by an interesting, strong, contrarian opinion
Why be diplomatic if that would result in none of the above?
I think you're missing his point about privacy, that "everything they share is held by someone who is no friend of theirs… whose goal it is to make a profit selling the ability to control human beings by knowing more about themselves than they know." And, "You injure other people today also using social media. You’ve informed on them. You’ve created more records about them. You’ve added to the problems not of yourself but of other people. If it were as simple as just you’re only hurting yourself I wouldn’t bother pointing it out to you."
The collectors would like you to think the data you're sharing is 'innocuous' and 'mundane' but they have algorithms and statistical confidences that say it isn't.
On the other hand, I think Moglen is hopelessly standing athwart history yelling 'stop' on this issue. Technology would make these behaviors trivial to monitor even if most people opted out (instead of cheerfully opting in). So I tend more towards the David Brin/'Transparent Society' view, that the only workable adaptation will be transparency/accountability and new social mores, because privacy is on its deathbed.
It usually is, until it isn't. By then, it's too late.
So what ARE the reasons?!?!
I'd like to hear why Adrianne Jeffries didn't include any of Moglen's points in the final article.
Does Adrianne Jeffries really think Moglen's ideas are "totally relevant"? The tone of her article suggests otherwise. She introduces him as a "militant" professor, and the title of her post appears to mock the entire situation.
The telephone exchange is certainly entertaining, but Moglen's points are relevant and I'm disappointed the author didn't include her reasons for omitting them from her article.
You really couldn't be both against apartheid and play Sun City, no matter how much you said you sympathized.
What did he ever expect? I think Moglen is right in his expectations that any article resulting from that will be bullshit. And really: "N.B.: In the end, I did not put this in the story for several reasons, not the least of it was the fact that it was late and over word limit". Really, the word limit is his excuse? Sorry, but I think the journalist is the jerk here.
How many people here would be excited about a law that required everyone to carry a government mandated tracking device with them at all times? Probably very few people right, no-one's really excited about that. How many people here have a cell phone? Right, probably everybody in this room has a mobile phone. And so what is the difference really? A mobile phone is a tracking device that reports its position over an insecure protocol to a few telecommunications companies that are required by law to reveal that information to eavesdroppers and governments worldwide. So what's the difference? Choice. This is the difference. You choose to carry a cell phone, whereas you would be forced to carry a tracking device.
Well I have a mobile phone. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would have a mobile phone, why would I want one: it's a mobile tracking device, it communicates over an insecure protocol, it's potentially a mobile bug. And yet I have one. So did I choose to have a mobile phone? Maybe.
I think if you look at the way that people tend to organise in groups and communities, there are often informal communications networks that bind them together, that allow them to communicate, make plans, coordinate activities. If you introduce something like the GSM cellular network to this group, and if I start using it, I am subject to something that is very well known called the No Network Effect. If I am the only one with a cell phone it's really not worth very much. The value of the network is in the number of people that are connected to it and that if I'm the only one I can't really communicate with anyone.
However if I somehow manage to get everyone to start using my communications network it becomes very effective and very valuable. But there is an interesting side effect, which is that the old informal mechanisms people use to communicate and to collaborate disappear, that they are destroyed by the introduction of technology. The technology actually changes the social fabric of how people communicate and coordinate. Mobile phones, there are many obvious examples. People used to make plans, they would say: "I'll meet you on this street corner at this time on this day and, you know, we'll do something" and now people say "I'll call you when I'm getting off work" or "I'll text you" and if you don't have a mobile phone you can't really participate in this type of organisation and you begin to find yourself kind of alone. Because if I now make a choice not to be a part of this cellular network, there is sort of an interesting thing where once again I am subject to the no network effect. The network that used to exist, the informal communications channels, has been destroyed.
So yes, I made a choice to have a mobile phone, but what kind of choice did I make? I think this is sort of an interesting phenomenon. What happens is a choice is introduced; it starts as a very simple choice: the choice of whether or not to have a mobile phone, a simple piece of technology. But slowly things happen to expand the scope of that choice until eventually it's so big as to encompass not just whether you have a mobile phone or not but whether you want to be a part of society. In some ways the choice to have a mobile phone today has become not necessarily just whether you have a piece of consumer electronics in your pocket but whether or not you are even a part of society, and that's a much bigger choice. Maybe not one that we should have to make, or at least maybe one that isn't really a choice at all.
That is it right there.
The only answer is the same technology without the bad side of it.
Mobile phones that do not track you, that governments can not track.
A Facebook alternative like Diaspora, except much better and as popular as Facebook.
We are not going to quit mobile phones and social media, but we have to strip their bad side from them. That may involve non-profit mobile phone manufactures, open source social media, who knows exactly what. But I know that technologically it is possible, now we have implement it and use it.
> that governments can not track.
The pragmatist in me wants to call that a pipe dream. Phones that work on the cell system that don't track you are an oxymoron. It would require a ground up reimplementation of phones. The best case I can see is burner sim cards for smartphones with all the data encrypted and some non-skype popular voip platform. Even if someone built all this you'd still be tracked while you used the phone.
You could start talking about mesh networks or public free wifi to improve some of those problems but any technically realistic solution relies on government supporting things they inherently dislike and popular support for "terrorist helping" technology (which the public doesn't care about until a local power group starts using surveillance to kill/torture a lot of them)
I suspect that long string of italicized text is to blame. Please remove the italics (which also make the words hard to read).
First, a key concept: there is no such thing as absolute freedom. Freedom can exist at many different levels, some of which are mutually exclusive; sometimes abrogations of lower-order freedoms are required to create higher-order freedoms. The archetypal example of this is the law which arbitrarily restricts you from driving on one side of the road. This is a small loss of freedom, but when applied universally, it creates the far greater freedom to drive for long distances without substantial risk of a head-on collision.
Now, with social networks and the like, freedoms are created and freedoms are taken away. The problem which Moglen identifies -- and is absolutely correct to call out -- is that there is absolutely no legitimate reason to abrogate the freedoms that are being abrogated. Where he goes wrong is in denying the reality of the freedoms that are being created: namely the most powerful one-to-many communications platforms in history. The citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are categorically not less free because they used Facebook to organise their revolutions. Whatever freedoms they lose on account of Facebook, pale in significance to the freedoms Facebook has allowed them to create.
Whether this calculation holds true in other societies is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate; where Moglen goes wrong is in denying that it's a debatable subject whatsoever.
I had the same problem with Richard Stallman, when I recently attended one of his boilerplate talks. While I greatly respect what he has accomplished and agree with the majority of his opinions, he had absolutely no concept that there could possibly be greater freedoms outside of his narrow domain. It was all too easy to picture him castigating, say, Syrian activists for distributing videos of atrocities using non-free codecs, captured by camera phones with non-free firmware. Stallman's position would seem to be that if you can't document an atrocity with fully free software and hardware, then you shouldn't document it at all. This is where he -- and Moglen -- take a swan dive from the moral high ground into the swamp of ethical bankruptcy in which all true zealots swim.
The bottom line is that there are greater freedoms and lessor freedoms. The world has collectively decided that the freedoms created by one-to-many communications networks are greater than the freedoms that are (unnecessarily) being lost in the process. Sometimes this decision is clearly correct (Tunisia, Egypt, etc.); other times it probably isn't. What's certain is that asking people to forego what they (often correctly) perceive as the greater freedom, in order to fix an unnecessary abrogation of the lesser freedom, is not an ethically defensible position to take.
Please don't get me wrong: unlike road-direction restrictions, there's no reason why social networks need to be compromising our freedoms the way that they are. I'd much rather see social networks created by open-standard distributed protocols rather than centralised corporate systems, just as I'd much rather see mobile phones with fully free firmware that encode video with free codecs. I think it's absolutely worth trying to create all of those things. But simply ignoring the genuine freedoms that are created despite the faults of these platforms is not ethically legitimate.
Ethics aside, it's also bad strategy, and just won't work. If you're obligated to give up your car before writing about global warming, or obligated to become a vegan before writing about animal cruelty, or obligated to take monastic vows before writing about conflict in domestic relationships -- then you'll probably never write about any of these issues. And that won't help anybody, will it?
I find Moglen's absolutist point of view on this issue refreshing.
You're not obligated to give up your car or go vegan to write about certain issues, but you're a hypocrite if you don't acknowledge your own contribution to a problem.
Two examples:
Al Gore did a great job spreading the word about global warming, but he still has a larger carbon footprint than most Americans (it's well-documented).
Jonathan Safran Foer became vegan when he researched and wrote his book "Eating Animals" about animal cruelty.
We need more people like Foer, do we not?
That's like saying that everyone at Occupy Wall Street had forswear all material goods in order to be considered "valid" protesters.
Discarding someone's argument due to a lack of complete purity is just plain facile.
No, it isn't.
Occupy Wall Street isn't about giving up all material goods. A better analogy is a OWS protester who is a manager at one of the banks that got bailed out.
>> Discarding someone's argument due to a lack of complete purity is just plain facile.
I never said the arguments should be discarded. I acknowledged that Al Gore did a good job spreading the word about global warming.
I'm just saying it's refreshing when someone actually stands behind their argument by making a personal change or sacrifice.
Jonathan Safran Foer became vegan when he researched and wrote his book "Eating Animals" about animal cruelty.
We need more people like Foer, do we not?
Sure, people doing what they preach is great, if you choose a value we agree with. But I'm sure you'd prefer if Breivik had been an hypocrite and not done what he believed to be right.
I've read many people, particularly on HN, say they are glad such extremes exist as a counter-balance. I disagree. I think that they muddy the discourse by presenting yet more things to argue with. I would rather see people advocating for privacy and software freedoms while advocating stances that I also think are reasonable and defensible. The difficulty with that, though, is that people who hold such views tend not to be professional advocates.
It's entirely possible this was a one time event. I wouldn't trust these services (especially facebook) not to cooperate fully with whoever is in power for censorship/identification purposes. If they don't cooperate they'll just be blocked anyway.
Surely the newness of this type of communication created these one-to-many communication freedoms, but I doubt it's accurate that these freedoms were/are anything but temporary.
That's not even counting the disagreement over how much of the communication was actually done on american social platforms vs existing text message infrastructure.
I agree that Moglen at least gets close to a absolutist position on this kind of thing (and Stallman is a good example of a similar position) but I don't accept that the positives of any contribution to Arab Spring style protests outweigh the negatives of literally informing on yourself and your friends to a private commercial surveillance network (which is indeed the literal truth even if I used Moglen's inflammatory language).
This has become the crux of my objection to social networks: they exist to gather data on you. Whatever benefit you get from it, their purpose of existence is data mining.
As the Pinboard Blog puts it, that's ANTI-social.
"We're used to talking about how disturbing this in the context of privacy, but it's worth pointing out how weirdly unsocial it is, too. How are you supposed to feel at home when you know a place is full of one-way mirrors?"
http://blog.pinboard.in/2011/11/the_social_graph_is_neither/
How true is this?
More here:
Reporter: Like, bye?
Could someone elaborate upon these? I am not aware of these incidents. (In particular, the first two.)
I agree it's a bit obtuse.
"Man gets three years in prison for insulting Islam on Facebook"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/arab-spring-in-egypt-man-g...
The problem here isn't Facebook, it's the government that he lives under. But Facebook did give him a much larger audience than he might otherwise have had.
None the less it seems like every time you publish on the net with an association to your identity in any form you do willingly degrade some aspect of your own privacy. Truthfully just from analyzing a couple sentences you probably have a pretty good shot at guessing all kinds of things about the person.
I don't want to live in a world where I have to not do things to avoid privacy invasion, I want to live in one which doesn't allow privacy invasion.
Obviously it's not a simple issue, you can't just sign up to twitter and tick the "no privacy invasion please" checkbox, but if we're going to aim for something, how about we reach for the stars not the dogshit.
You are right to say that we need better rules to regulate the second, or to go with Moglen - the people should know better than to even ask for such rules instead of staying away from the problem. But that doesn't mean that the same logic must suddenly apply to civil society, no matter how paranoid (and, at times, rightfully paranoid) you may be about the tracking that happens there.
I know it's "just" betabeat, a blog, etc, but imagine if Leslie Stahl or even Katie Couric made the emphasis of a story how they were "legit yelled at" by an expert source who gave some thought provoking ideas on a silver platter that could have been developed into much more.
I just cant describe how awesome Moglen is.
A "journalist" wants a story, a complete article, so she doesnt have to think - get this she says " I was hoping you might be ableto help me think about this particular" - she wants him to think for her! She could as well have told him to please write the article for her in full, but she will take the credit and money. Then he still serves her an idea and a very fruitful thesis which she could write several articles about if she would pull her finger out of her ass for once.