Stallman raises some interesting points, but calling the Kindle a "Swindle" doesn't make for a very rational argument.
All of the tech giants (Apple/Google/MS/Facebook/etc.) are as shady as the Amazon described here on a regular basis even when it's completely unnecessary, unfortunately. Amazon has drawn a lot of bad publicity to itself due to the poor treatment of its blue collar workforce (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3641184 ), but I can't imagine the rest of the big players being any better... Only difference is that due to the nature of its operation, Amazon is forced to operate its sweatshops in U.S. soil.
Or are you saying that although many of the points are interesting, point 37 is irrational, therefore the entire thing--points 1 though n--is tainted?
- Non-ethical corporate compliance with surveillance activities.
- Pay-for-placement allegations. (Especially interesting given recent lawsuit for ratings spam.)
- Warehouse worker treatment.
- Monopolistic pricing power, particularly against small publishers. (Also ironic, as Amazon has given self-publishers a great platform.)
Note that this is just a list of allegations: this isn't a particularly investigative piece. (Though several have been linked and/or published elsewhere.)
Less valid arguments/rhetoric include:
- Calling the Kindle a Swindle. (Cute, but I can't take your argument as a serious, objective view.)
- Broad "freedom" arguments about file formats (PDF, MP3) and rights associated with same not originating with Amazon.
- Auto-update as a "back-door".
- Hosted content vs. owned content and the pros and cons therein.
- Workers "walk all day under the orders of a computer". (Like Uber drivers drive all day under the orders of a computer?)
- General competitiveness against bookstores and differences in business models.
So I'm saying that Stallman makes N interesting points (albeit without much in the way of reasoning), another N points I find to be logically unsound, and that combination of factors lead to an overall "article" that isn't very impactful.
The interesting points are still interesting.
My conjecture is that if you are inclined to agree with someone’s negative point of view, rhetorical tricks like insulting nicknames will be well-received and will help frame the idea emotionally. But if you already disagree with someone, you’ll be even more annoyed by arguments that aren’t really arguments at all.
My guess is that his nicknames won’t pay well to this audience, and also that they do better in some places than others. For example, blog post titles are usually so bad that people have very low expectations.
“The Great Kindle Swindle” would probably fly as a post title, while calling the device an Amazon Swindle repeatedly might not.
There's no double standard in my view. Calling it that in a persuasive essay about why you should avoid the TRS-80 is similarly childish and imprudent.
> My conjecture is that if you are inclined to agree with someone’s negative point of view, rhetorical tricks like insulting nicknames will be well-received and will help frame the idea emotionally.
Almost certainly so. But this is clearly framed as a persuasive essay.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html
I sometimes make a point of saying "copy prevention" rather than "copy protection," or "digital restrictions management" rather than "digital rights management," but I don't go for stuff like "Swindle" or "Losedows."
And he is correct: for instance, if you replace the names for things that your audience uses with your own hostile epithets that insert the conclusion of your arguments into the names you use for the things they refer to, you will have no debate at all, because the only audience that will bother to pay attention to you is the audience that already agreed with your conclusion when they encountered your argument.
> Stallman's limitation in this regard is that he's not a marketing genius, and lacks the funds to hire one, so he's forced to resort to clunky puns like 'Swindle'.
If the FSF can't afford to hire someone even modestly capable in the realm of communication and advocacy to advise its public faces, including its President, on their public advocacy efforts, maybe it ought to close up shop as an advocacy organization.
and you're back. Just because somebody picks abrasive plays-on-words doesn't make their rhetoric any less rational. Unpalatable and annoying, yes, but that's got nothing to do with the argument structure and statements themselves.
...Frankly, I'd prefer more rationality from Richard Trollman. ;-)
Amazon and Kindle are legitimate whether Stallman likes them or not. And I don't think—given the tone of the rest of the article—that anyone would confuse using the proper name of the product in question as respect.
Made-up names can be done with a wink-and-a-nod when punching up for great effect ("We had particular issues integrating with a vendor who we won't name but are a bit fruity--we'll call them Orange for the sake of comparison"), but usually it's done by people who aren't particularly bright.
At the same time, there is kind of an open question as to how much power a name has. If we only ever use the proper trademarks for these folks, are we not always granting them a certain amount of legitimacy and respect?
SaaSS and SaaS: "... the term “Software as a Service” doesn't explain why the practice is bad. So we coined the term “Service as a Software Substitute”, which defines the bad practice more clearly and says what is bad about it"
Bare in mind the FSF is poor, it doesn't have a marketing department behind.
Edit: In much the same way that closed source software denies freedom. What I mean to say, is he has a reputation that might make things like rational argument more difficult.
Your expectations of Stallman are far too high...
Facebook slightly relaxed its policy of requiring accounts to carry people's real names, under pressure from cross-dressers. The company feared they would leave the site, and then it would be unable to do drag net surveillance.