> I completely disagree.
Okay. That sounds emphatic. I don't want to cut in on how you feel Bastien but
simply to point out the confusing motivations at play here.
> Knowing that FSFE is using Facebook provokes two reactions in me: one is my
> "gut feeling" ("guys??"), another one is the one I’ve already presented
> ("FSFE should play a role model").
Okay. The logical conclusion to those reactions are a) not strictly logical b)
Contingent on agreeing what that role model ought to be (either to use FB to
further it's aims or not)
You may think the Dalia Lama is a role model on World Peace, but it hardly
qualifies him as a role model expert for encrypting an email client - and my
point is the reverse is also true... the FSFE have a lot to contribute to
society and provide they do it within the law and don't set out to harm anyone,
it should get on with it in whatever way it thinks is the most efficient?
> Saying that "politics is not logical at all" does not make sense to me.
Yes, that's the point I am making too.
> And discarding a logical argument because I *also* presented my gut feeling
> does not make sense either.
Yes, and that's because you haven't presented a logical argument, you have
presented a politics of affect, which I think is the way to go too.
It is precisely because you have a gut reaction to FSFE being on FB that is
interesting - that is why this is a legitimate topic of discussion, because
people are reacting emotionally to an issue that is not at all logical, but an
emotional one. The reason why it is emotional is because peoples lives are
involved, much less is it about machine learning.
> I urge everyone to simply acknowledge the fact that it is difficult not to be
> on Facebook and, consequently, anyone can very much be tempted to craft
> justifications on why an organization like FSFE
should be on FB. But I still consider all these justifications to be wrong.
You are demanding people participate based on your feelings about Facebook.
Many people will agree with you, and that's fine but it's not a 'fact' in the
same way a pebble on a beach exists whether we 'like' it or not. Your argument
is subjective (again this is okay) but recognizing the subjective nature of
your argument is important to both your point and mine.
If we accept that people are responding to the issue in an emotional rather
than an objective mode (and there is plenty of evidence of this in this
discussion) then that strongly suggests to me the FSFE needs to make an
emotional call for people to change, rational choice theory when it comes to
software was abandoned I think in the seventies?
If there was a natural science model for why people use FB I would love to have
it, but the only appropriate methodology in social science and political
science seems to be one of 'story telling' to me, and we ignore that reality at
our own cost I think.
My view is that folk on FB clearly are not calculating according to rational
criteria, because they are sharing way too much and demanding very little from
their captors. Their "feel for the game" is that FB is good for them but that
is based on what FB are telling them and all their friends - and the FSFE I
would say needs to be part of those conversations people are having about
privacy and data protection where people can hear us.
So, again we seem to agree on this tactic of using emotion to make our points
effectively is okay?
All that's left then is to consider if an emotional plea for people to switch
to FS can be articulated on FB.
We both think it can, but the point you want to make is that it is not
consistent in FS use - again I agree - but I would rather tweet someone about
the harms of twitter than not tweet them at all - perhaps this is where we
disagree? You think it is better for people to find out about FS in a FS
environment - which I happen to think is idealistic and not practical (and
there are plenty of reasons to reject pragmatics of course).
I also agree that a pragmatic approach can be confusing for people, but here I
think it also misses where FS is at right now. Sometimes activists end up
having to continue to argue for change in sub-optimal settings because society
doesn't like what they say. This doesn't mean the activists are supporting
refugee camps or locking up dissenting voices in prisons - far from it.
Mandela was not a fan of the South African judicial system or Robben Island,
but he was a trained lawyer and I am sure FS advocates are not fans of FB (I'm
not) but sometimes we have to be prepared to use the system to bring attention
to the harms the system is producing, it's not logical and it's not ideal - but
then logic and ideals are not what the FSFE are about... if logic and ideals
are what you prefer... I would recommend studying a higher level qualification
in philosophy maybe (despite the fact I think the system of Universities is
harmful too! right?)
/ m
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
