If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible.
Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap" or "Dumbocrat" or "Dumbocrap". That does not make me think they are clever wordsmiths; rather, that makes me think that they think I'm an idiot and that they think they can actually manipulate me with such silliness. It also makes me think they arrived at their own philosophy not by trying to understand opposing views, but by inventing their own strawmen for whatever tribe they imagine they are opposed to. It makes me think they are driven by tribalism rather than ideas.
Example 2: well, here, RMS' insistence on using the word "useds" rather than "users" when referring to people who are on Facebook. Yeah, I get it. Ha ha ha. It doesn't make me think you're clever, it makes me think you literally do not possess the capacity to reason about anything without invoking strawmen. It calls into question every single observation you are making. It makes it sound like you don't respect the people you are supposedly trying to convince, and are instead just enjoying preaching to your choir.
It's not like an isolated incident, it is literally his primary rhetorical device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades. Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It's so frustrating because he does have some (some) very insightful and constructive ideas about a lot of things, and could be such a positive contributor to the world, but it's like he wants to alienate his non-choir audience right out of the gate. It's like he's terrified of actually engaging with people that are not already 100% (not 99.9%, he demands 100%) on his side. He is right about some (some) things, but so many, many people will never know it because he wants to shoot himself in the foot as soon as possible.
I do not use "democrap" or "republicant", as they do not promote the discussion or understanding in any way.
However, I did adopt Stallman's "Copy Restriction" (instead of "Copy Protection") and "Digital Restriction Management" (instead of "Digital Right Management") - because they are a much better description of what the concept actually is for 99% of the people.
I started doing this after I told someone that I will not buy a Depeche Mode CD I wanted and was holding in my hand in the store, because it has copy protection; they looked at me completely puzzled, asking "Why wouldn't you want your copy to be protected?", and a little more inquiry revealed that they believed it was a somehow more robust (by virtue of being "protected") than non-copy protected CDs.
Language is a very potent medium of control. You are, indeed, used by facebook when you interact with it, and introducing it into the language is a way to bring it to the surface. He's not using "useds" to be clever. He's bringing it to the surface. It might look stupid to you, but I assure you that you are not immune to this kind of bias (and neither am I). I know that's why he does that, because I've heard him personally explain that when attending one of his talks.
In fact, if you look at the works of Kahenman & Tversky, you see that equivalent questions worded differently get opposite responses from people who we expect to know better (e.g. doctors, pilots, ...).
Stallman is basically trying to counter the (essentially unlimited) bias that the media has against what he believes, and I don't know of any tool that does that better than the rhetorical device(s) he is using.
Among other things he speaks of the think-tank-driven concerted effort to influence political support by using language invoking specific metaphors to frame important issues.
Like "Tax Relief" for dramatically reducing taxes for the rich etc.
Changed how I process political speech and pretty much any media-supported narrative.
I was just going to reference this. He was a master on the power of words, in both explaining it (as in your reference) and showing it in 1984 and Animal Farm.
Thank you for this link. More and more I am appreciating this guy's research. Have never seen him speak, what a natural speaker, very enjoyable as well as edifying.
Never meet your heroes. I was a big fan of his work before taking a class with him. He's the rockstar of the cogsci department at Berkeley but he's known as a massive ego and a poor professor.
I agree with you. Language is an incredibly important part of a social movement. When you strip away the orwellian-ness of terms, you expose the true meaning. Manipulating language like that just isn't the same thing as using slurs like "democrap". Terms like "useds" highlight an important part of the true nature of advertising companies like facebook, but terms like "democrap" are simply insults.
Arguably, the terms "copy protection", "digital rights management", "intellectual property", and probably a lot more that aren't on the top of my head are the result of, to quote the GP, "warping the very language they use to support their point"; but the groups in favor of these things were there first, and so they got to define the terminology that we've all ended up with.
This is probably just me but I think when they re-word things they choose the clumsiest and least-sexy possible words to put into the acronyms. Digital Restrictions Management is not only a mouthful, it's also obtuse and why bother when you could have something cool like Digital Rebel Management?
That being said, if your claim is that the acronyms as they existed do not accurately describe what's going on, I fundamentally disagree. What's copy protection? It's technology that protects against copying. Protection and restriction might as well be synonyms. What's DRM? It's technology that helps rights holders manage the rights they have to their intellectual property. What's intellectual property? It's like physical property, but it's ideas instead of objects. Intellectual property is never safe from the fair use exception, which is what protects what one might call the "free flow of ideas" and such. It's simply there to protect exploitation for financial gain.
What's copy protection? It's technology that protects against copying. The naive reading (as beagle3's store clerk said) would be that it's technology that protects a copy, or perhaps the process of copying. Protection and restriction might as well be synonyms. Unfortunately, you are right: the term "protection" has been routinely used to mean the forcible restriction of competitors from entering a market, as in "protectionism" and "monopoly protection".
The common theme here is that someone invented an abstract concept and applied a word to it that got its good connotations from the more concrete things it was usually applied to. Usually you can point to ways in which it betrays the original concept. In "copy-protection" and other kinds of business "protection", the thing being protected is not a business, or people, or property, but rather the ability of a particular group of businesses to make a profit doing what they're doing; the implementation of this "protection" may well involve sending police to forcibly shut down other businesses, arrest people, and confiscate property. For "intellectual property", the "right to the property" that the law enforces is not the right to the material integrity or full usage of anything physical; in fact, it's the privilege to prevent other people who have full ownership of physical objects from using them in certain particular ways. The digital "rights" are roughly the same: the right is not to own and have the full use of some digital object (which presumably means a group of bytes in memory or persistent storage somewhere), but in fact to prevent other people from possessing isomorphic digital objects.
The government can invent any kind of "exclusive right to do X", and make the privilege transferable. Then people can buy and sell it. Like taxi medallions. And then people can call it "property", which they "own", and the government "protects" their "right" to it. I think it's a debasement of the terms, which functions (deliberately or otherwise) to mislead the unwary into granting the practice legitimacy.
Trying to set the terms used in a political debate is incredibly common. In the abortion debate, the two sides call themselves "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice", which both sound good on the surface. Who wants to be anti-choice or anti-life?
The PATRIOT Act was not called the Increase Spying on Citizens Act, but perhaps it should have been.
The unfortunate fact is that if your political adversaries have already chosen a favorable-sounding, possibly-dishonest name for something, it's very hard to persuade people of your position while using the other side's terms.
> You are, indeed, used by facebook when you interact with it
But we're using it too. So maybe, "exchange" would be a better word? Although, with most of nowadays' apps (youtube, google, gmail, facebook, whatsapp, ...), the way they use "us" is really limited compared to the practicality they provide.
Still don't understand the problem with the terms in your second paragraph. Copy protection protects CDs from being copied. Digital rights management manages the rights of the IP owner. These are just as valid.
Then you have claiming Win32 is a subliminal message about winning rather than an abbreviation for Windows...
Copy protection doesn't protect the customer, nor does digital rights management help manage their rights. They are not benefits for the customer, only negatives.
When my bank charges me a fee, they call it a fee, not a bonus, though it's the latter from their point of view.
It does protect the customer though, at the very least it means their money was well spent and other people can't violate that social contract by taking what they want for free.
Personally, I don't feel any social contract is violated if someone else gets for free music that I paid money for.
Furthermore, it seems neither do many of the artists - most of them make their music available for free through e.g. YouTube.
And even if such a social contract existed, I suspect I would feel more harmed by the inability to format-shift the music I bought, than by someone else listening to the music without paying.
It is rare for two passengers on an airplane to pay the same rate even for the same seat and service class. Does this violate any social contract in your opinion? Obviously, the money was not wall spent by one of them.
Well no it doesn't, but that's generally because they had rewards with the airline or bought it in a deal somewhere. Both are legal ways to reduce the money you pay for things. As is streaming music these days. And I should emphasize I'm not against being able to crack DRM and I think it would be really bad to make uncrackable DRM. In my opinion DRM is not supposed to stop the people who would crack it anyways, it's the people who would try it just for the hell of it if it were easy. It's like why you put a lock on your house: it's not because it makes it impenetrable to burglars, it's because it keeps out 99% of the assholes who would just walk in if there was no door.
For 99.999% of the users, it restricts the user from copying the CD. And actually, the CD itself doesn't really care if it's copied, so the cd itself is not "protected" in any way. It provides some minimal protection to the rights owner from unauthorized copies (which are usually, but not necessarily illegal - c.f fair use).
Now, which terminology is more appropriate - that which describes the situation for essentially everyone involved (e.g. a billion people) or the rights holder (essentially less than 10 "people" if you count corporations as people)?
> Digital rights management manages the rights of the IP owner. These are just as valid.
Again, they are valid from the narrow point of view of 0.001% of the population, but INVALID and IRRELEVANT from the point of view of the rest.
"Copy Restriction" and "Digital Restriction Management" are factual and actually neutral. It is what these systems do. Whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view.
Similarly, it wasn't mentioned here, but stallman likes to refer to "Intellectual Property" as "Imaginary Property", which is also factual. I have yet to adopt this one, but I will only really accept "Intellectual Property" as property when it is taxed like property.
I have mixed feelings about RMS's use of language, but I think you exactly illustrate beagle3's point. Perhaps they are just as valid, but if the contrasting term is just as valid and more in tune with your views, then you might object to the dominant term.
> Copy protection protects CDs from being copied.
The contention is of course with the word "protection." It implies that copying is a bad thing and that preventing copying is protection. It's a loaded word, even if in general use. Replacing with "restriction" challenges this this notion with a word loaded in the opposite direction.
> Digital rights management manages the rights of the IP owner.
The assumption here is that the restrictions on use are in fact "rights of the IP owner." There is no a priori reason that there should be. In fact IP rights are a part of law and public policy. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be; obviously Stallman and beagle3 disagree.
It's not that there's a problem with the real terms, it's that stallman's alternative terms better highlight the actual nature of the things he describes. Those phrases are quick substitutions with the potential to make someone think more about the topic. Simply getting people to think about a topic is important for a social movement.
If someone in 1984 had started coining alternative terms the way stallman does, the amount of thoughtcrimes would skyrocket.
While there is some truth in that, it feels a little hyperbolic. Not all websites are equally abusive of their users. They don't all run their own tracking beacons or store, extrapolate and sell the same depth and quantity of personal information.
Not all but most of the major sites.
I'd expect all of the top 25 sites on Alexa to be equally abusive with the exception of Wikipedia. The difference between most sites (excl. Google) and Facebook is that Facebook have more users and more usage. They're not more abusive, their tracking just reaches more users.
And please don't propagate the false notion that Facebook sell personal information.
RMS, to some extend, is like the pope. He often says strange things, where many people do not instantly agree. But he won't change his message just to please you, which is what we are used to get from most people, especially politicians. You can count on him and his, at heart, very humanist views. I recently was at one of his keynotes, and we all, including me, could only laugh at his over-and-over usage of words like "the Amazon Swindle" or Service-as-a-Software-Substitute (for SaaS). The "problem" with him, while he sometimes sound ridiculous, he makes me think and sense stuff I otherwise wouldn't have a critical look at. I'd say he does good (to the world) - while not caring if his recipe tastes well.
The problem is that saying "Swindle" instead of "Kindle" works when he's talking to people who already agree with him, but is seen as adolescent crap by people who don't agree with or don't understand his message. It's preaching to the choir.
"Digital Restrictions Management" is a good semantic switcheroo, but "Swindle" is just name-calling. I've read his reasons for it, but really, it just makes it harder for people "outside the choir" to hear his message.
He's not trying to be the bridge. He is the standard bearer.
In the 90s, others such as ESR and Linus were the bridges. Stallman has always been the idealist who will hold firm to his ideal. Back in the day, like you, I thought he was extreme and kind of silly. ESR had a far more socially acceptable and commercially palatable message (which is pretty shocking in retrospect, considering the direction his writing and politics have taken).
Nearly 20 years later, it's clear that Stallman is almost certain to be a historical figure remembered hundreds of years from now. His older "crazy" pieces like The right to read look more prophetic by the day. If nothing else, his utter disregard of popular views has made him free to speak truths that others can't.
> Nearly 20 years later, it's clear that Stallman is almost certain to be a historical figure remembered hundreds of years from now.
Hyperbole much? He's not going to be forgotten, but... RMS is a hacker icon, but he's a bit obscure outside the community. RMS is legit hating on Facebook here but there's no Hollywood movie about RMS. Zuckerberg is a household name. I'll agree that RMS has done more net good thank Zuckerberg, but who is more likely to show up in a textbook a hundred years removed at this rate?
Unless he does some remarkable philanthropy, Zuckerberg will be forgotten shortly after Tom from MySpace. Facebook isn't really fundamental to anything, it's just a business that executed an existing concept very well.
RMS may never be well known to the general public, but his reputation within his field is likely to endure in a manner similar to Euclid or Eratosthenes. GNU and the GPL are foundational elements of modern computing. Stallman had the fundamental insight that software is inherently political, then built a large part of the infrastructure necessary for humanistic software to flourish. The landscape of modern software would be utterly unrecognisable without the contributions of RMS.
> it's just a business that executed an existing concept very well
So is McDonald's, but I somehow think that they've managed to embed themselves into the culture/society enough that they won't soon be forgotten should they ever fall.
I'd expect Ray Kroc to be at the level of a Jeopardy question. I wouldn't expect RMS to be a question. Michael Keaton is playing Ray Kroc in a film that will be released in two months.
Holding firm to your ideal includes getting your message across effectively. If you want social change, which Stallman does, you have to 'preach beyond the choir'.
I don't think Stallman's positions are silly. A touch extreme, but I generally agree with them. I just think his name-calling runs counter to what he wants to achieve.
RMS isn't writing for a general audience, he is writing for us. We hackers can spread the word in a palatable manner; RMS's job is to hold us to account, push us to the highest standards of ethical conduct and hold a mirror up to our hypocrisies.
The world needs pragmatists, but it needs zealots too.
> RMS isn't writing for a general audience, he is writing for us.
People who already agree with him? Great way to spread his message huh?
> RMS's job is to hold us to account, push us to the highest standards of ethical conduct
For certain (i.e: his) values of "ethical conduct", obviously.
> The world needs pragmatists, but it needs zealots too
And apparently a lot of people need a messiah to follow.
If you need someone to "push you to the highest standards of ethical conduct", I'd like an hour of your time to explain how not giving all your money and assets to me, is completely unethical.
Honestly, appearing crazy is how stallman attracts his audience. He's the center of a pretty radical social movement, all he needs to do is preach to his fans and his supporters do the persuasion to "normal people". A few years passes, and literally 90% of what he's said becomes true. He gets his credibility from his predictive powers, not necessarily being mature and put together. His article on trusted computing (where he calls it treacherous computing) that he wrote a few years back is extremely accurate to the current state of computing.
> A few years passes, and literally 90% of what he's said becomes true. He gets his credibility from his predictive powers, not necessarily being mature and put together. His article on trusted computing (where he calls it treacherous computing) that he wrote a few years back is extremely accurate to the current state of computing.
>> In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission.
Please tell me how that is even remotely accurate? Who is producing a computer that requires explicit permission from the mothership to do anything?
>> Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to.
Please tell me which programs are being distributed that prevent other programs from running and/or opening documents?
>> These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work.
Please tell me which programs download “rules” from an internet source, and then prevent you from accessing your own files because of said “rules” ?
>> Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous computing for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), so that downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified computer. Sharing will be entirely impossible, at least using the authorized files that you would get from those companies.
First off: digital music has gone entirely the opposite direction. When introduced, basically all major digital music used DRM, it’s now the norm that music is distributed DRM-free.
Movies do have DRM, yes, but I’m not aware of any digital service that limits you to a single device, and its definitely not the norm.
>> You, the public, ought to have both the freedom and the ability to share these things.
Why, exactly? I don’t like the way DRM hurts honest consumers either, and I don’t think ultimately it’s going to achieve the results the industry want, but I understand why they’re trying to do it.
>> There are plans to use the same facility for email and documents—resulting in email that disappears in two weeks, or documents that can only be read on the computers in one company.
Where, what plans? Also, for certain types of sensitive business documents, that sounds like exactly the behaviour a reasonable person could understand the use for - encryption and privacy is a huge fucking issue right now, can you honestly tell me you don’t see why it would be an advantage to have the OPTION to say “this document can only be read by the physical devices I approve”?
>> Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her.
Where does this happen? I’ve seen email security systems, where a software component requires mail to have a security classification, and only mail below a certain classification can be sent the world, higher classifications could have requirements such as destination WAN links to use, or destination domains etc, but this was 100% a software (Outlook + Exchange when I saw it) solution, it was not in any way related to TPM/etc and it didn’t prevent the obvious things like “print this email to a pdf” etc.
>> Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing when they save your documents, to make sure no competing word processors can read them. Today we must figure out the secrets of Word format by laborious experiments in order to make free word processors read Word documents. If Word encrypts documents using treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community won't have a chance of developing software to read them—and if we could, such programs might even be forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
So we’ve gone from absolute “X will happen” into “Y could happen”, where Y is in fact the opposite of something that has happened.
>> Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions.
Where. Where on planet earth is there a word processor that sends every word you type to POTUS for approval. The Hunger Games is more believable than some of this stuff.
And finally, we get to the part that is accurate:
>> As of 2015, treacherous computing has been implemented for PCs in the form of the “Trusted Platform Module”; however, for practical reasons, the TPM has proved a total failure for the goal of providing a platform for remote attestation to verify Digital Restrictions Management. Thus, companies implement DRM using other methods. At present, “Trusted Platform Modules” are not being used for DRM at all, and there are reasons to think that it will not be feasible to use them for DRM. Ironically, this means that the only current uses of the “Trusted Platform Modules” are the innocent secondary uses—for instance, to verify that no one has surreptitiously changed the system in a computer.
>> Therefore, we conclude that the “Trusted Platform Modules” available for PCs are not dangerous, and there is no reason not to include one in a computer or support it in system software.
So basically, the stuff where hardware and software companies wanted to devise a way to protect the integrity of software against malicious attacks, is pretty much exactly what happened, and all the shit RMS claimed would happen, either didn’t happen, or the opposite happened.
So, tell me again how this article is “extremely accurate”?
Except, the current pope has made statements that show more flexibility to adapt to reality, regarding topics such as the bing bang/creationism, gay marriage, apologising to the gay community and other marginalised groups, etc.
I am in no way religious. At all. Not the slightest bit.
I am 100% convinced I could have a meaningful, pleasant conversation with the Pope. I am positive we would find a middle ground to chat over coffee, for example.
I am 100% convinced I could not do the same with Stallman. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, his general demeanour seems to be "Listen up chumps, I know what I'm talking about, if you don't agree with me, it must be because you're too stupid.". He shows no ability to accept an alternative viewpoint.
Just as the pope would not find atheism an acceptable attitude, RMS would not find non-free-software or software that takes away rights to your devices and data acceptable. From what I found, it is very well possible to discuss a lot of broader topics with RMS. He seems to be very open to cultures and revolutionary ideas and can discuss them from various viewpoints if he is in the mood. He also has ideas (e.g. copyright on films) where he suggests stuff, but is open to discussion and ideas.
Today, essentially all software runs on his ideas. Gnu/Linux is at the heart of Android, most (home)routers, the vast majority of webservers. The "hacker" community here at HN is full of knowledge about *Unix systems, that nowadays are full of GNU software. He is awkward a lot of times, but essentially, by being so, he (in conjunction with Linus) won over the world.
> Just as the pope would not find atheism an acceptable attitude
Except...:
> "God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.
Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience."
That is a direct quote, from an article titled "Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven"
Hence my original point. The current pope, has made more efforts to reach out to people outside his own faith, with a reported 1.2 billion followers, than Stallman has.
Stallman's ideas in general should be easier to 'sell' to people too - they don't rely on faith.
> He seems to be very open to cultures and revolutionary ideas
Unless that idea is, I want to release the code that I've written, under a license that lets anyone else do whatever the fuck they want with it.
> Today, essentially all software runs on his ideas.
I think there are a very large number of developers - both open source and commercial - that would disagree with that statement.
> Gnu/Linux is at the heart of Android
No, Linux, the Kernel is at the heart of Android. They specifically don't use the GNU userland environment.
> he (in conjunction with Linus) won over the world.
You seem to be painting Linus and RMS in the same light there, which they very much are not. Linus views Open Source as the best way to get great software. RMS views copyleft as the only way to get morally acceptable software, and cares more about preventing companies from making a profit than he does about the actual result.
What strikes me here in particular is that this article is mirroring most of my own reasons for being uncomfortable with Facebook, but I still find myself wanting to disagree with him. The rhetorical style makes him come across as a bully, and on a gut level I don't like to side with bullies.
So I'd like to say that after some more measured, thoughtful reflection I come around to his side.
But I don't. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, and even after taking a few breaths and trying to read it more calmly, his hyper-paternalistic posture still gets to me. I read his writings, and I don't ever see a glimmer of an attempt to empathize with the people he's ostensibly standing up for. Instead, it seems to me that he's only thinking about his own feelings on the subject, and assuming that everyone else either (A) thinks about it exactly the same way he does, or (B) doesn't know from beans and needs to be browbeaten into realizing it.
It's a wonder he doesn't use the word "sheeple" more often.
I have been struggling to identify why I dismiss Stallman and think of him as a idiot, and your post calls it out: the bullying. The assumption that if you don't 100% agree with him, you are an idiot. And the complete lack of empathy.
Agreed. It's things like the line: "From now on, when people want to snap me with a mobile, I will verify it does not have a Facebook app installed before I say yes."
What is he actually achieving there? People can legally take his picture without his permission. People can take his picture (on a Facebook-less phone) and then upload it to Facebook later. And what sort of malicious things is the Facebook server going to do with his sacred visage anyway?
So a fan asks for a picture, he demands to search through their phone first, probably gives them some anti-Facebook lecture if their apps don't pass muster... but for no actual "privacy" benefit? Okay. It's just bullying.
> The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, and even after taking a few breaths and trying to read it more calmly, his hyper-paternalistic posture still gets to me.
Can you give some examples from the text? Like you are expressing frustration over something but what is it? It's a long list of arguments with links to supporting articles. I don't understand what your complaint is.
I can't speak for the person you replied to, but it seems that I'm not the only one in this thread who gets a descending, "I know better, you should just listen to me" vibe from a lot of Stallman's writing.
That's not what bunder said. 'enemy of my enemy is not my friend' just means that a common opponent means nothing for your relationship with another party.
Democrap and the like are simply derogatory terms. And so are abbreviations like M$ for Microsoft or the German term Windoof (could be translated as Windumb) for Windows. But this is not the kind of terms Stallman uses.
Instead, he usually tells you why he uses a specific term and I have yet to come across a case where he doesn't have a point with his term. Microsoft can be regarded as „Malware“, because it does things you do not expect and may not want it to do (like spy on you). Facebook users can be regarded as used, even though I don't think there is any point in denying that they themselves use Facebook, as well. I'm not educated enough to talk about DRM, but it seems he has a point in calling it Digital Restrictions Management, too.
If I'm not mistaken, Stallman now actually prefers the term libre to the term free, because it is less ambiguous. Or he sees the value in it; I don't recall it exactly.
>“Woe32” denotes the Windows 32-bit operating systems for x86: Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista and Windows 95/98/ME. Microsoft uses the term “Win32” to denote these; this is a psychological trick in order to make everyone believe that these OSes are a “win” for the user. However, for most users and developers, they are a source of woes, which is why I call them “Woe32”.
Infamously MS Windows bindings for emacs are are prefaced "w32-" instead of the standard "win32-" because RMS decreed "Windows is not a 'winning' platform."
You have a point, but I believe warping the language from the norms can be different.
I can't know what Stallman meant exactly and what are his intentions, but from reading the text I believe what he tries to do is to either create a neologism (cf. "enforce a meme"), or avoid a word misuse that may lead to some invalid connotations or suggestions (cf. calling a photocopier "xerox"). Probably both, but the latter case is important.
There are a lot of cases where saying an established term for something (with term invented and enforced by marketing/politics) serves in favor of some an agenda, and one may deliberately decide to change the language to combat this. Consider that Stallman's also known to ask to avoid calling copyright infringement as "theft" or "piracy".
Avoiding agendas, almost certainly not the case with "democra[tp]s", as it's just name-calling. Most likely it's the case with "piracy", as using this term mixes in some incorrect allusions. And, while personally I think "useds" instead of "users" isn't a good idea, it's probably somewhere in the gray area in the middle that may have some reasonable justification besides just Stallman trying to pull a strawmen.
Except that Stallman uses what you identify as name-calling all the time (cf. Amazon Swindle).
Also, the oft-repeated notion that "piracy" is a contemporary slur invented to associate copyright infringers with violence on the high seas is simply wrong. It's documented since 1603 (The Wonderfull yeare, T. Dekker), and is the term used by the 1883 Berne Convention. That's covers most of the history of the word in English usage.
Fine if you want to change the dialogue on IP, especially based on changing technology, but that doesn't justify rewriting history.
1. Yes, and no props to him on that. Name-calling's just inappropriate for a public rhetoric. But as for this particular article - it's a different case.
2. It's not about history rewriting. When one uses different term and disagrees with the commonly used one, they don't (well... normally) deny the facts that there is such use. The usual attitude is "they say 'piracy' but I believe it's wrong to use this term in such context"
He refuses to use the commonly established language which distorts reality. It is a radical choice (given how well established the manipulative language is).
I can see how some may find this irritating. You may want to take a look at this lecture to see why language is so important and influential.
Some of his substitutions are arguably valuable rhetorical devices, but the majority are just childish digs which don't add anything because they're far more distracting than they are challenging.
Every time I run into one of his idiosyncratic terms, it interrupts my train of thought, and dislodges any argument he had been constructing there.
> Every time I run into one of his idiosyncratic terms, it interrupts my train of thought, and dislodges any argument he had been constructing there.
In the spirit of ergodic literature, such as the use of extensive, awkward footnotes in Infinite Jest, some consider this to be a good and effective thing. If the reader isn't willing to put in the cognitive effort to constantly overcome this and extract the meaning of the overall argument, then that reader was probably just looking for some easy confirmation bias reason to disgree or criticize in the first place.
By constantly jarring you out of feeling comfortable while reading, it means that, if you are determined to read it seriously, you will have to exert more effort and by the end will likely have gotten much, much more out of it than if it had been designed to feel pleasant for the reader.
I actually love this style of writing and can't get enough of it. I also like the music of the band Swans and eat lots of meals with bitter foods (like huitlacoche, bitter melon, extremely earthy green tea). I don't know what it is, but I feel this kind of constant, just-on-the-cusp-of-being-too-unpleasant disruption for almost any sense qualia really leads me to appreciate things more, dig into them more deeply, retain more about them later on, and quickly separate things I do care about consuming from things I don't care about consuming.
It's kind of like putting up with the pain of a deep tissue massage to get the more satisfying muscular relaxation that comes later.
Well it's nice that the true believers get something entertaining to read, but there are a lot of people looking for reasons to disagree or criticise who might find themselves converted if he put in some effort to address his arguments to them. As the figurehead of Free Software, we should expect more from him than esoteric literature.
It's not the true believers who should be happiest about the effects of ergodic writing. Instead, it's the ones who disagree, but for serious reasons. If someone would only be converted if the writer makes it super easy, then I think e.g. Stallman feels like why should he waste his time on someone like that?
I do think there is something important to be gained by those childish digs which is avoiding branded terms while still being able to communicate about them. Take Crapple for example, they have hundred million dollar marketing campaigns designed to get people to associate Apple and iPhone with $desired_positive_qualities and you want to break your readers out of those associations. You can get around this by genericizing the brand (e.g. iPhone -> smartphone) but this doesn't work when you don't have a problem with the generic term or you want to talk about a specific companies product.
You were bringing up a interesting/intellectual point until you mention the word free. At that point, either you are pointing towards a tribe of thinking, or simply ignoring the massive amount of Philosophy that has been written around the concept of freedom and the many and large volume of thought that has been written about it. John Locke wrote 400 years ago a definition of freedom that fits what RMS says, and its not without reason that RMS often says that the word liberty is a better word since its less ambiguous, except for in the US where liberty has been associated with a political party. GPLv2 even call a clause "liberty or death", rather than "freedom or death".
Is it really that wrong to use freedom and liberty as two interchangeable words? Having read some philosophy, even those trying to define the words often use both words. As an example, "Persons have a right or liberty to follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited" and "Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society".
I'd even go so far as to say, the fact that so much of us are talking about this rhetorical device (one I think is pretty childish and distracting) means he's missed the mark in writing a persuasive essay. A lot of us aren't talking about the merits of using Facebook vs not, because we're talking about that dumb neologism instead. Shakespeare, he is not.
Which is too bad, because a lot of his points are worth discussing--not necessarily agreeing with, but at least discussing. Like, what value are people getting in return from Facebook? Why are people OK giving away their content, exposing their eyeballs to ads, being tracked, etc.? Is it that they don't know? That they know but don't care, i.e. have different priorities in life?
What alternatives could there be to this service that so many people (even in the comments here) find value in using? Facebook is bad, rah rah, but people want to connect and it's there and it works. What would you ask people to do when we all shut down our facebook accounts?
All these questions are being lost because of "useds". That's too bad.
Seeing the discussion about this neologism as the first comment on the thread was disappointing. There were many important issues raised in the article.
In a way, Stallman uses the word "used" because he is writing for a certain audience. For one, he is writing for himself, but also the vast majority of his audience are hackers. And these hackers are curious enough to read the strange language choice and think about what that might mean. One might be led to ask how impure and tilted the language around our relationship with these products is.
If he really wanted to make an approachable article, this should be titled, "21 reasons why you should stop using Facebook". But Stallman isn't trying to please everyone, he is trying to please his audience (including himself).
> but also the vast majority of his audience are hackers. And these hackers are curious enough to read the strange language choice and think about what that might mean.
The focus of this very comment thread is proof that isn’t the case. Plenty of us agree with the basic premise, but take issue at his entire approach to communicating with people, and thus don’t consider the article “good”.
> If he really wanted to make an approachable article, this should be titled
Or he could just write it like he’s expecting adults to read it, and drop the condescending and childish names he makes up for everything he disagrees with.
He is not "wrapping" the very language. He is trying to correct the semantic imbalance that is tilted towards the $100 Billion corporation. The thing you need to grok about RMS is that he is a purist.
This fact strikes many people as stubborn, too idealistic, impractical etc - except that from RMS perspective it is the least he could do to stay true to himself.
Also consider this - the world of software has been infinitely enriched by RMS (and the like) so he has the absolute right to put forth arguments with the expectation that software developers pay attention.
Facebook on the other hand has not done so - to put it mildly.
Is it the angry punk on the street corner screaming at you that convinces you to stop eating meat? Or the reasonable person that cooks you a tasty vegan meal and can hold a conversation with you?
Just because the person has some amount of credentials doesn't change this fact. It's more about how people work than anything else.
> expectation that software developers pay attention
RMS doesn't have an expectation that devs pay attention.
He has a pre-disposed opinion that he is absolutely ethically and morally right, and that we snivelling shits should be glad to have the opportunity to accept his humble offerings of knowledge.
> Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
He did not "appropriate" the term free. FreeBSD and OpenBSD call what they do "free software" and they also call the gcc "free" and the phrase "free software" predates the Free Software Foundation.
He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he says "free". Unlike what most of his opponents seem to believe, he does not mean "copyleft only" when he says "free". He means the exact same thing as "open source", just like "global warming" means the same thing as "climate change". Same thing, different political slant.
> He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he says "free". Unlike what most of his opponents seem to believe, he does not mean "copyleft only" when he says "free". He means the exact same thing as "open source", just like "global warming" means the same thing as "climate change". Same thing, different political slant.
That's not remotely true. When RMS says "free", he means "copyleft". Open Source means merely that interested parties can look at the source but does not imply rights to alter and redistribute. It derives from precedents like the Open Software Foundation (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation) which was open-as-in-specified, certainly not open-as-in-GPL.
Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified
versions as free software. A free license may also
permit other ways of releasing them; in other words,
it does not have to be a copyleft license.
Do people even read this whenever they quote it? He says in it like three times that open source is the same thing as free software (and adds, parenthetically, except for very minor exceptions).
"It does not have to be", but in practice it usually is (although he accepts BSD, even though it doesn't guarantee users' access to modifications). RMS advocates "liberated" software, or software that is itself free from being locked into a proprietary fork. That's the whole point of the GPL family of licenses. If you read the corpus of his works - I have - he very consistently talks about the importance of software freedom and how that Open Source can refer to many very non-Free things.
> Do people even read this whenever they quote it?
Did you? He writes:
"Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM” software. Their idea is that, by publishing the source code of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for restricting users like you. The software would then be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.
"This software might be open source and use the open source development model, but it won't be free software since it won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the open source development model succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even worse."
Yes, he's talking about a disagreement there with the open source movement. But the overall thrust of the article is that FS and OS are the same thing, overall, but lead people to different conclusions. He explicitly addresses the misconception that people think that only copyleft is free:
Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea
that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to
accompany another misunderstanding that “free software”
means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken,
since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license
and most of the open source licenses qualify as free
software licenses. There are many free software
licenses aside from the GNU GPL.
And that's all I want to get across. rms isn't as loony as people who want to disagree with him make him out to be.
I would even agree that RMS appropriated the term free, but what your statement that RMS says free == copyleft is not remotely true and contradicted by your "source." His definition of "free" is aligned with the OSI definition of "open source" (the term he dislikes). RMS is a waterbearer for copyleft because he doesn't respect proprietary uses, but he includes BSD/MIT licenses under his definition of "free." He doesn't include software that has public source but restricts free commercial use, modification etc.
This notion of free though certainly isn't what most nonhackers/software people would generally associate with the term. It's his formulation.
You seem confused about the definition of copyleft.
When something licensed to me under, say, the BSD 2-clause license, I have the ability to look at the source, to alter it, and to redistribute it (with or without modification). It is not copyleft, because it does not require that derived works be released under a comparable license.
The terms Free Software and Open Source are the same from a technical point of view, to the extent that they describe the same set of software. However, they are different in that they connote different views about the world---people saying free (or libre) software take a stance in that software should be free in order to build more just society, while people saying open source don't necessarily take a political stance with regard to software, and often see licensing only from a business point of view.
Not going to comment on the efficacy of "used" versus "user" in RMS' argument here. However, your comparison to "Democrap", etc. doesn't seem to fit here very well. The former is a shorthand for his entire argument and technically correct. Facebook "users" are "used" by Facebook. This is their business model. The latter is just simple name calling serving no useful purpose.
Even if that's your thesis, it's still a bad term because it doesn't say anything about why. If you're going to use an atypical term in a debate, it should convey some information about why you hold your beliefs.
Stallman's writing is reminiscent of The Jargon File or FOLDOC. There are many "silly" terms like the ones you mention in those collections. (More on textfiles.com.) Stallman was a part of that era. Maybe he's just an original 1970's "hacker" trying to stay true to his ideals. They liked to create their own counter culture vocabulary.
Then you have Zuckerberg who puts some blurb in Facebook's first SEC filings that his website^W company will follow the "hacker" ethos. What was he doing there, using that term? He sure has a lot of corporate sponsorship for a "hacker".
Imagine Stallman and Zuckerberg in a certain American game show that ran for several decades. Hint: The game's title relates to honesty.
If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible.
Thanks for saying that - that's one reason why I struggle to take this article seriously.
There's a term for this in the realm of public debate, which I am presently unable to recall, but the gist of it is the idea that you ask for a much greater concession than you really want in the hope the stakeholders settle closer to your ideal than if you'd simply laid your cards on the table.
By doing this repeatedly and over time we can (slowly, maybe less slowly?) change the course of history.
> There's a term for this in the realm of public debate, which I am presently unable to recall, but the gist of it is the idea that you ask for a much greater concession than you really want...By doing this repeatedly and over time we can (slowly, maybe less slowly?) change the course of history.
That concept is likely moving the Overton Window[1]
Overton window perhaps? The main way the mainstream media prevents this is, as Chomsky said, narrowly defining/limiting the terms of debate, but allowing very lively debate within those confines.
> If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point
Part of Stallman's point is that the "ordinary" language that most people use to describe things is already warped. For example, Facebook describes itself as a "social network", when what it actually is is a network for harvesting data on people. The socializing people do on Facebook is a side effect, not the network's primary purpose.
Sometimes the only way to fight warped language is by warping it back in the other direction.
> it is literally his primary rhetorical device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades
Yes, because he genuinely thinks that so much of the world and our language is already warped that he doesn't think ordinary discourse, using ordinary language, will have any effect. You might not agree with his viewpoint in toto; but his behavior is IMO understandable for someone who genuinely has that viewpoint.
But that's what Facebook users are - useds. They're targets for Facebook's platform, namely, delivering ads. You've actually made a strawman of RMS' argument by attempting to draw the false parallel between ex1 and ex2.
The appropriate understanding of RMS' use of language is similar to how any philosopher might use language with idiosyncratic coinages thrown in. In other words, it is simply a manifestation of a particular philosophical outlook.
Edit: it would appear quite a few other responders to your post are making this point as well. I think you should seriously reconsider how you're attempting to characterise RMS' way of making a point.
They're also users. Or, you could use the same inversion for about everything: we're not buying cars for getting around, it's the automotive industries that lure us into giving them money with stuff that can be used for travelling. We're not consumers of potatoes, it's the potatoes that use us to reproduce themselves.
Facebook is, apparently, satisfying some needs. Users pay for it by giving a share of their attention to ads, but they wouldn't watch the ads if there wasn't a value in Facebook itself. Seems to be a win-win relationship.
I think you are validating RMS' approach without realizing it. Take the perspective that potatoes use us to reproduces themselves: Viewing things from that perspective is actually a useful device for explaining and understanding biological evolution. Just because it's an unusual perspective, does not mean that it's therefore invalid or useless or even just a bad idea. Also, to take the analogy further, bacteria and viruses do the same in some way.
Now, and interesting question to ask is: Is facebook a potato or a virus?
I'm not saying that "used" is invalid per se, but rather that it is a perspective that is not justified simply by the fact that Facebook has an advantage from the user. I think your last question further clarifies the problem. Human beings are clearly used by viruses. Unless they use a virus to drive a gene into an organism. But sometimes things are harder to discern: are human beings users or useds of tobacco? Or of cats (* )?
In the end probably it all depends on a value judgement: who gets by far the most value out of the transaction? But then Stallman should just say plain and loud what he means: that Facebook is useless to the people that spend their time on it.
---
(*) as cats are clearly parasites hijacking the human nervous system.
> I'm not saying that "used" is invalid per se, but rather that it is a perspective that is not justified simply by the fact that Facebook has an advantage from the user.
But are you saying that "user" is a perspective that is justified simply by the fact that the used has an advantage from Facebook?
> In the end probably it all depends on a value judgement:
Of course it does. Everything does. Even whether killing people is bad is ultimately a value judgement.
> But then Stallman should just say plain and loud what he means: that Facebook is useless to the people that spend their time on it.
Why should he? And doesn't he? Did you not understand him that you think he should express himself clearer?
> But are you saying that "user" is a perspective that is justified simply by the fact that the used has an advantage from Facebook?
As for any other product or service.
> Why should he? And doesn't he? Did you not understand him that you think he should express himself clearer?
Stallman says:
We call them "useds" rather than "users" because Facebook is using them, not vice versa.
This is provably wrong: people use Facebook and get a marginal advantage out of it that is arguably on par with what Facebook gets from them.
By the way, I agree with much of Stallman's criticism of FB. I do have an account there but seldom, if ever, open it (I also use a tracker blocker to stop them from tracking my navigation). But apparently a lot of people likes it, and find it a valuable addition to their lives.
So, what was your objection to saying "used" again, if that same justification can be used for both?
> This is provably wrong: people use Facebook and get a marginal advantage out of it that is arguably on par with what Facebook gets from them.
Well, you say that that is provably wrong. But where is the proof?
> But apparently a lot of people likes it, and find it a valuable addition to their lives.
Which sounds like an argument that you could use to justify any status quo? Aren't you effectively saying that the fact that something is the way it is indicates that people value that it is the way it is and that therefore people couldn't possibly want it any other way?
Couldn't it be that people aren't aware of possible alternative realities and thus haven't ever thought about how they would value those in comparison to what they currently have, for example?
>So, what was your objection to saying "used" again, if that same justification can be used for both?
My dear amass of eukaryotic cells, you non super-intelligent consumer of oxygen and precious resources, polluter of the environment, when you choose to emphasise in an unusual way some perfectly normal aspects of an object (* ), you do it to provoke an emotional response. And I like rational discourses, not emotional ones.
[* unless this provides an explanatory value, which in this case doesn't, as most of Stallman's points are unrelated to the user/used issue]
>> This is provably wrong: people use Facebook and get a marginal advantage out of it that is arguably on par with what Facebook gets from them.
>Well, you say that that is provably wrong. But where is the proof?
You can just ask people if they like to use Facebook, if they get any value from it. Most of those who use it regularly will say they do. End of the proof.
> Couldn't it be that people aren't aware of possible alternative realities and thus haven't ever thought about how they would value those in comparison to what they currently have, for example?
Of course it is like that. You aren't aware yourself that there are many better things to do than roaming the forums of YCombinator, and yet I bet you find some value in the action, and the (sure) existence of unexplored alternatives is not per se sufficient to negate this value.
> My dear amass of eukaryotic cells, you non super-intelligent consumer of oxygen and precious resources, polluter of the environment, when you choose to emphasise in an unusual way some perfectly normal aspects of an object (* ), you do it to provoke an emotional response. And I like rational discourses, not emotional ones.
Or you do it simply because you think it more clearly expresses your opinion if you don't follow the narrative that you are trying to argue against.
> You can just ask people if they like to use Facebook, if they get any value from it. Most of those who use it regularly will say they do. End of the proof.
All you have proved is that people claim and maybe think that they do, not that they actually do get an advantage.
> Of course it is like that. You aren't aware yourself that there are many better things to do than roaming the forums of YCombinator, and yet I bet you find some value in the action, and the (sure) existence of unexplored alternatives is not per se sufficient to negate this value.
Your point being? That it is impossible that me roaming HN is actually a net negative for me and that therefore anyone arguing otherwise is obviously mistaken, regardless what argument they have to offer?
> Or you do it simply because you think it more clearly expresses your opinion if you don't follow the narrative that you are trying to argue against.
It's annoying when you try to change the shared language, which is convention-based, to reinforce your opinions. It's usually called "name-calling" and done for political reasons, e.g. calling climate change skeptics "deniers". Trying to shape the language to try to reinforce specific views of reality is always very very suspicious.
> All you have proved is that people claim and maybe think that they do, not that they actually do get an advantage.
Well, whether they do or not is up to them. It's the principle of democracy, liberalism and tolerance: people are entitled to decide, entirely subjectively, what's best for them, as long as it doesn't damage others.
> It's annoying when you try to change the shared language, which is convention-based, to reinforce your opinions.
I disagree.
> It's usually called "name-calling"
Well, no, it's not. While that might be the case sometimes, it's not necessarily so, and in particular it's obviously not the case in the case we're discussing here.
> Trying to shape the language to try to reinforce specific views of reality is always very very suspicious.
I disagree. And I disagree for a very simple reason: More often than not the existing usage is not neutral in the first place, it just happens to have been first (and sometimes not even that), and that's not always just an accident either. So, the existing usage is as suspicious as the attempt to change it, which is why the appropriate response in my opinion is to take the opportunity when someone suggests a new convention to examine whether the existing one is maybe more suspicious than what is being proposed.
> Well, whether they do or not is up to them. It's the principle of democracy, liberalism and tolerance: people are entitled to decide, entirely subjectively, what's best for them, as long as it doesn't damage others.
Well ... no. Or at least, that's besides the point.
People are entitled to decide what they prefer, but people are not entitled to decide how reality works. So, people are entitled to decide that they want to smoke, to take a random example. But people are not entitled to decide that they want to smoke and not die early due to side effects from smoking. They might wish that it were so, but smoking objectively comes with certain health risks, and you have to decide either for smoking with these risks or no smoking without the risks.
Now, some smoker might not know about the health risks of smoking and therefore put a positive value on smoking, while at the same time valueing the health risks that objectively come with smoking negatively with a greater magnitude than the value they put on smoking. It would be completely besides the point to argue against that by saying that it's a principle of democracy that they are entitled to continue smoking. Sure they are. But it's an empirical fact that once it was established public knowledge that smoking is bad for your health, many people adjusted their valuation of smoking to a negative value and quit.
Also, it isn't even so clear whether the use of Facebook isn't damaging others. Facebook has a network effect, which in economists' terms is in the category of externalities. In so far as network effects of proprietary systems tend towards creation of a monopoly and thus slowing of innovation and many other abuses that monopolies tend towards, there probably are negative externalities--or in other words: damage to others.
You're only emphasising the legitimate use of "useds" by RMS. The notion, in any case, is that being a used of Facebook undermine's one's claim to privacy. Potatoes and cars don't apparently do the same thing, so they qualify as red herrings at best - having no relationship or bearing on the larger claims RMS puts forward.
C'mon. It's no secret that Facebook doesn't give much concern to users/useds privacy. Any claim to the contrary is highly suspect.
This is only to reiterate that the target market of Facebook does not include those who wish to maintain a greater level of privacy by not using it.
In the short term, it may be. But RMS is looking at the long term. In the long term, he believes people will be worse off if they use Facebook than if they don't. I agree with him on that.
I really hate this argument. Sure, everyone knows that Facebook makes money by selling advertisers access to targeted users. However, it isn't like users aren't getting something in return for this. Users of facebook aren't 'useds', they are participants in a transaction. They are given a service they enjoy, and in return they grant their eyeballs for ads, and their data for targeting those ads.
Now, we can argue whether users are aware of what they are trading, or if the trade is fair, but I think most people have a pretty good idea of how Facebook is making money.
You can hate the argument all you like; although such an emotionally charged term being levelled against the argument itself is curious but probably not particularly informative. It also doesn't change the way Facebook violates norms of privacy in a number of ways that should give people pause for thought, at any rate. RMS has put forward excellent reasons that detract from the use of the platform.
I was not using the term 'hate' in the emotional sense. Perhaps a better choice of words would be to say that I find the argument disingenuous; almost everyone these days knows what Facebook does for a living, so to act like Facebook users are somehow being tricked is simply untrue.
> I think most people have a pretty good idea of how Facebook is making money.
I don't. I think most people don't even think about how Facebook is making money. They just see that it doesn't cost them any money, and they think "oh, great, I can connect with people for free!" and use it without considering the costs or the bigger picture. This certainly describes practically everyone I know personally who uses Facebook.
Are you trying to say that RMS is an irrational zealot? I agree with you wholeheartedly! But he changed the world with persistent application of irrational and at times childish zeal. Many would say the change was for the better.
The problem IMO is not that he uses dishonest rhetorical devices but that his recent proclamations sound old and boring and failing to confer sufficient emotional charge to the reader.
Depends on how crudely it is done. I'd argue that all great speeches and manifests are great precisely because their message resonated powerfully with emotions of the audience.
There are instances where people use wordplay to gain an emotional/rhetorical advantage in a debate. For the seasoned, this might be irksome at best, but I agree, repeatedly hearing "Dumbocrat" can get old and I, for one, will quickly lose respect for that person. But comparing Stallman's use of the word "used" to conventional, quite childish wordplay seems like a very, very far stretch.
Stallman is redefining those people we know as "Facebook users", because in this case, "user" is not a correct term. A user is someone who uses a product to gain utility. By using a product, you gain something from the experience. A used is someone who is on the opposite end, where you are on the losing end of the deal.
In a relationship between Facebook the corporation and the Facebook "user", who is gaining more utility, and who is on the losing end? Stallman argues that Facebook "users" are on the losing end. Thus they are appropriately termed "useds", with evidence backing his redefinition.
A junkie is a drug user, but they are being used by the criminal infrastructure providing those illicit substances. To say that they are not a user because they are being used via their usage is just nitpicking.
Facebook users are using Facebook and gaining utility through it, regardless of what they are giving up (whether they realize it or not) to do so.
The distinction might be petty, but for even a junkie, used might be a more accurate descriptor than user.
As a non-junkie and non-member of the criminal infrastructure, one might see "drug users" feel used more than empowered through their gain of utility. Same is true for facebook "users" as well.
If you see "user" as someone who uses a product, then this discourse is pointless. But if you think of a "user" as someone empowered by products, then using the term "Facebook users" should make you feel uncomfortable.
> If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible.
It's a bit of a long read, but David Foster Wallace's Tense Present[1] proposes something about language which I believe to be true. Wallace proposes that language communicates two things: 1) its direct meaning, and 2) the membership of the speaker/writer in a discourse group--that is, a community which uses a specific dialect. I think that your reaction to Stallman's choices of words is not to the direct meaning of Stallman's words, but to the communication of Stallman's discourse group. He's using a dialect, one which he had a large part in creating.
I don't think you can argue easily that Stallman is using the word "used" incorrectly in this writing, but it's easy to see how it's offputting and even a little insulting. And more importantly, it's exclusionary--when Stallman uses a dialect that we don't use, he's establishing himself as being in a different discourse group of which you and I are not a member. Or to put in your words, he's preaching to the choir. It's normal for humans to react negatively to being excluded in this way.
But the flipside of that is that specialized dialects serve to elevate the discourse of a discourse group on topics that interest that discourse group. There are rumors that Eskimos have X > 10 words for "snow", but we can observe the same thing in dialects of English: Medical English differentiates between a break and a fracture and borrows frequently from Latin, Programmer English uses "tree", "heap", "loop", etc. in ways that non-programmers never use them, Psychology English has specific meanings for "narcissist" and "OCD" that differ significantly from their usage in other English dialects. These differences are exclusionary, but their purpose isn't exclusion, it's as a shorthand for complex ideas that otherwise wouldn't be pragmatically possible to express in other dialects of English. It's not just preaching to the choir. These dialects were created to allow specific and accurate communication of the ideas of their discourse group.
I think that, at some level, that's what Stallman is trying to do. It does come across a bit heavy handed: while most dialects occur organically to meet the needs of their discourse groups, Stallman's dialect is to some extent synthetically created by Stallman. But Stallman's dialect does, to some extent, meet the needs of a discourse group. I, for example, find it very useful to differentiate between Free (Libre), Free (Gratis), and Open Source. These aren't differences which can be talked about as succinctly without Stallman's dialect, but they are differences that have deep implications for our society.
I agree with you that this usage of language is apt to alienate people who aren't members of Stallman's discourage group (or in your words, alienate his non-choir audience right out of the gate). But the same can be said of other dialects: Feynman, for example, talks about how Physicists start by teaching students models which are fundamentally incorrect, and iteratively change the model until the student understands a model closer and closer to the truth[2]. I'm not sure Stallman understands the implications of his jarring use of language for the uninitiated, and I think he would be more effective if he shifted his dialect to match the discourse group of his audience.
However, I do think Stallman fills an extremely valuable role by defining the language of this discourse group. There are many advocates of Free (Libre) Software who use more accessible language when talking to a more general audience. I like to think that I'm one of them--I've adopted a bit more of Stallman's dialect for this post than usual. But when talking with members of Stallman's discourse group I shift more toward Stallman's dialect, and this elevates the conversation. There are lots of people effectively advocating Free Software, but there aren't many people contributing to the creation of a dialect around Free Software.
It's also worth noting the level of control that corporations, politicians, and other political organizations exert over the dialect you're using. I'd posit that the dialect of English you are comfortable with using makes a distinction between "user" and "used" that is not representative of the phenomena those words describe, and that is largely because of the influence of the dialect Wallace calls "Advertising English" on your own dialect of English.
you don't seem to understand what the word literally means, and are appropriating it to further your own intellectual dishonesty. "Literally" has such an intuitive meaning and I find that your violent disinclination to conform to the norms of positive contributers to society to be deeply frustrating.
> It's not like an isolated incident, it is literally his primary rhetorical device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades.
This is just hyperbole. You might have some legitimate arguments hidden in your vitriolic strawman-riddled banter, but as is, you are alienating the readers of your comments. In future, please try give your arguments a fighting chance, and not place a rod into the front wheel of your moving bicycle.
(Point of my post: I think you're nitpicking on something insignificant and dismissing the entire argument based on that.)
That wasn't the argument OP was making. He was making a (legitimate, IMO) objection to RMS' rhetorical style, and saying that it makes many people not want to read his writing. OP never said that this makes FB blameless.
If the OP doesn't intend to defend Facebook against RMS's claims, his criticism of RMS's rhetorical style is wholly irrelevant to his core point and, in turn, this discussion.
Rhetorical criticism is fairly common and vital, as the message and the medium are pretty closely intertwined. The twists of words Stallman uses are to cause a guttural reaction to what he is saying and to try to evoke a populist response. Much like speeches by recent political figures, such as Donald Trump, Stallman's rhetorical style will agitate people who already support him, but alienate him to the greater number of people who disagree with him.
As much as people try to claim that the medium doesn't matter, it does, a lot. Stallman is a poor user of the mediums he is given, and as such, the points made are difficult to discuss. Were he to use less slanted language, and stick to the facts, he would be more effective in getting his point across, and would not open himself, or his arguments, to such criticism.
I guess? If you believe that so much then have fun discussing the "RMS rhetoric problem," that will definitely help humanity make forward progress. The lot of us who already get his point will be discussing the Facebook privacy monopoly that actually affects humanity.
Btw, in case you didn't notice, I didn't like your rhetoric and I ignored all the logic in your post because it came across as preachy, or whatever. Next time be less preachy, or whatever, that will help, maybe?
Is disagreeing with the style of someone's rhetoric really the same as an attack on the person? The parent comment is making the point that Stallman uses exclusionary tactics while speaking and that they are a turn off if you aren't already a convert. I think it's a cogent point and I think it applies in a more general sense to a lot of lazy techniques employed by those who seek to be divisive.
I don't think he dismissed the original argument ("Facebook is bad for you") at all, he's just commenting on the use of bad rhetoric and how it detracts from Stallman's goal of convincing people not to use Facebook.
I don't think everyone would listen to a person flinging insult, even if their argument has some basis. I wouldn't listen to a person who rely on bad rhetoric either.
That much is obvious to anyone here, but I'm noticing an odd spate of downvotes that contradict that post. Any insights? I'm seeing at least 6 downvotes to my posts alone.
That's an insightful point. I also find the crude name-calling to detract from rather than support the message.
I remember once reading one of his posts on a topic where I was in strong agreement with his point of view before I began reading, but finished it alienated and pissed off. Thinking back later, I was surprised — nobody ever managed that.
If one's tone of writing is pissing off even those who agree with him, that's a complete failure of communication, and one needs to stop and re-evaluate one's communication style.
I haven't read any more posts from Stallman in almost a decade. Life is too short to read something that's more likely to annoy you than enlighten you.
RMS is a "maniac", and I don't mean that in any derogative sense, but I can't find a better word. He is able to put forward enormous amounts of passion and energy for his cause.
Sometimes there are people who commit to ideas in such a way. Think of Gandhi and his absolute commitment to non-violence in any situation.
It's good that these people do what they do, but it's also important that they are taken with a grain of salt.
>that makes me think that they think I'm an idiot and that they think they can actually manipulate me with such silliness.
So "Brexit" was made up just to manipulate British people? That's how language evolves, isn't it? New words get coined, some of them stick and stay, some go away. "Dumbocrat" won't stay for long because it carries nothing but insult.
Brexit is not a pejorative corruption of a pre-existing name or term. Incidentally, it's a basically neutral coinage used by both Leave and Remain camps.
I'd argue Brexit was a neutral coinage, same with Bremain. Those terms dominate the press because of its simplicity but have a weighting effect on its readers and are naturally directing discussion into one side of the debate.
So you only support the newspeak that supports your point of view?
How do you feel about terms like "collateral damage" that used to be "murdered civilians" in war?
Secondly there is internal logic to "used" that is not present in the name calling you compare it to. False equivalency does not strengthen your argument.
I don't think the OP said anything about supporting other kinds of newspeak.
I don't think the OP said anything that seemed falsely equivalent. Constantly saying "used" instead of "user" is clearly similar to saying "Democrap" in at least one obvious way: that you're childishly substituting a replacement for a common word in an attempt to be clever and subversive, while alienating anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Their point was very clear and it seems like you're misinterpreting it on purpose, as though you have your hands over your ears.
Right now, you're undermining his point by drawing an example from something he clearly didn't even talk about (i.e. Your example not his). Whether you love or hate Stallman, OP has made a valid point here. You can't expect to capture the hearts and minds of a prospective audience by alienating them intellectually. If I had no idea who Stallman was, and I read this, I wouldn't even consider taking it seriously. It comes off like a spoiled child who's just angsty enough to "fight the power".
Yeah, "useds" doesn't sound grammatically correct. The most annoying is when people ask: "do you have facebook?", the obvious answer should be: "you can not have facebook unless you're one of the shareholders, the facebook has you!"
Users and Facebook use each other voluntarily, for their own gain. It's a normal business that anyone can choose to use or not. Both terms users and useds are ok to describe the 2 aspects of the business, and for arguing which aspect weighs more. Users use Facebook first, so overall users is the more proper term.
Thank you for this. It's been a feature of UK journalism for a while (Bliar, Gideon, ConDems etc etc) and I haven't been able to put my finger on why I felt so vehemently opposed to it, other than a generic feeling that it was abandoning argument. This is much closer.
It's childish. I don't understand why people try to do this. The organization is called the Democratic party. It is not clever to change the name as some kind of shorthand for your own personal opinion.
It's not about being clever, calling your political party "The Democratic Party" is itself a rhetorical device and a brand that is cultivated by hundred million dollar ad campaigns.
If you're going to break those associations you need to call them something else while still having your reader understand what you're talking about and 'childish insults' are one way to accomplish that. Language is powerful and controlling it controls people's perceptions. Maybe a more obvious example would be the PATRIOT Act. Who would be unpatriotic enough to vote against that?
Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap" or "Dumbocrat" or "Dumbocrap". That does not make me think they are clever wordsmiths; rather, that makes me think that they think I'm an idiot and that they think they can actually manipulate me with such silliness. It also makes me think they arrived at their own philosophy not by trying to understand opposing views, but by inventing their own strawmen for whatever tribe they imagine they are opposed to. It makes me think they are driven by tribalism rather than ideas.
Example 2: well, here, RMS' insistence on using the word "useds" rather than "users" when referring to people who are on Facebook. Yeah, I get it. Ha ha ha. It doesn't make me think you're clever, it makes me think you literally do not possess the capacity to reason about anything without invoking strawmen. It calls into question every single observation you are making. It makes it sound like you don't respect the people you are supposedly trying to convince, and are instead just enjoying preaching to your choir.
It's not like an isolated incident, it is literally his primary rhetorical device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades. Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It's so frustrating because he does have some (some) very insightful and constructive ideas about a lot of things, and could be such a positive contributor to the world, but it's like he wants to alienate his non-choir audience right out of the gate. It's like he's terrified of actually engaging with people that are not already 100% (not 99.9%, he demands 100%) on his side. He is right about some (some) things, but so many, many people will never know it because he wants to shoot himself in the foot as soon as possible.