Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with plugins?

[Mat Witts]

Hi Florian,

> [...] people have the right to give up their freedoms, but I don't
know why they would from a theoretical perspective.

Well, with the obvious possibility of again sounding a bit like a
lecturer with a hangover who has stumbled into the wrong theatre - I
have to say there are many theoretical perspectives available in terms
of accounting for / interrogating the human person. His makes it hard
for me to usefully grasp your perplexity. I think the best domains
capable of articulating much of this are social/political science and
moral philosophy but anthropology, psychology, biology and a few others
I have failed to bring to mind here may also have a bearing 

My comment about ideas of freedom having within them the seed of a
paradox - definitively the right to refuse the terms of freedom as
represented I think is slightly socratic/analytic in tone (which many
people still have a fondness for I think?). If I have you right, I think
you are suggesting that quibbling with end users about the quality of
their 'choice' (ahem) to say, use facebook over other free alternatives
would provide good evidence that the 'logic' that makes the paradox
visible can also be dismissed as 'impractical' and 'misguided' (which it
might be) - so either would prove you right.

The trouble is that the motivations (impractical or misguided as they
might be in your view) for human persons to refuse their rights then
there are again, many situations where this might work seems to me to
rather more counter the rationale based on the assumption of perfect
information symmetry that is confounding you and others. The politics of
the architecture of choice is interesting because often what appear as
choices are not choices at all in that decisions are made due to the
ambush of our cognitive apparatus by affective states, also manipulation
by dominant actors and so on and so forth, (behavioural insights -
'nudges' etc.) but even if we ignore all of that (and there are of
course many reasons why we ought not to since these factors perhaps
account for the majority of what you might see as sub-optimal choices)
we are still left looking at an array of what could be described as
enlightened choices for a human person when it comes to abstaining from
the ideal of freedom.

There are many cases where individuals have sacrificed themselves for
the sake of another, or a cause and although I understand you are not in
favour of such things, the power of the consensus on individual
sacrifice, both religious (Jesus on the cross, jihad etc.) and secular
(civil war, world wars) is perhaps ignored in this narrative of the
ideal of a rational human person, since it is connected (again rightly
or wrongly) with strongly motivating feelings like love, fear, power
(dominance), excitement and so forth. 

> I was talking about how someone might decide for themselves that they
want to use proprietary software X, but they can decide differently at
any later point.

Well, I've lost the context for this comment but taking as it is, and
depending on what use you had in mind, I don't see only one direction of
travel here, I see only countercurrents where people may use proprietary
and/or free software combined, interchangeably and alternately and it's
the job of organizations like the FSFE to make the benefits clear, which
sometimes they do really well, and sometimes that message gets lost in
the mixed imperatives of being an employee of the FSFE, an assembly
members, perhaps a small business owner working on our own account and
an FSFE member which I think Daniel is doing well to point out and
possibly seek to change

>> Proprietary software has to happen, because that's the way
international copyright law is configured,

> Do you mean "has to happen" in the sense of "it is inevitable" or do
you mean it ought to happen?

Both. I don't see the moral gap at all. The challenge for us all I think
is to lobby for policy changes to ensure large populations generally get
what they need from Free Software, by enforcing policy and cultural
change in those institutions, rather than putting too much effort into
manipulating (or perhaps 'massaging' is better?) technologically naive
end-users and attempting to block them with plugins and so forth. That
is a totalitarian impulse in my view and ought to be curtailed - even if
you want to give them that 'choice' (which may act more like a 'belief'
perhaps?)

Keeping on message for me is about highlighting the severe threat
Facebook is to individual security and privacy and to argue for change
at the company through political engagement with governments and INGO's,
I don't buy the privatization of responsibility here, it is our
institutions that need to change here and individuals ought to be able
to make their choices as freely as is the case now - but using more FS
when they are living their lives.   

> The idea was to write a plugin that people can voluntarily install and
then it would warn them of potentially 

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with plugins?

[Florian Snow]

Hi Mat,


Mat Witts  writes:
>> I also cannot comprehend it
> It' easy - one example is some groups object to liberal notions of
> education on the pretext of religious belief.

I used comprehend here differently.  I would argue people have the right
to give up their freedoms, but I don't know why they would from a
theoretical perspective.  From a practical perspective, I understand
that people will give reasons, but I cannot help but feel that those
reasons are misguided.


>> a decision for non-free software can be reversed at any point
> Yes, but if software is 'copyleft', then bringing it back into
> proprietary control is complex.

I don't understand how the two are related.  I was talking about how
someone migh decide for themselves that they want to use proprietary
software X, but they can decide differently at any later point.  I was
not talking about turning Free Software into proprietary software.  I
would not want anyone to do that.


> Proprietary software has to happen, because that's the way international
> copyright law is configured,

Do you mean "has to happen" in the sense of "it is inevitable" or do you
mean it ought to happen?


> I don't like FB, but I do like the rights people have to connect to
> that platform, as misguided as I am sure we agree it is?

I agree, people have and should have the right to connect to services we
deem problematic.  But the original suggestion was not to prevent people
from connecting in any case.  The idea was to write a plugin that people
can voluntarily install and then it would warn them of potentially
harmful practices.  So someone who wants to support the Free Software
movement, but does not know the details yet could use such a plugin to
become more aware of some issues and avoid sending links that other
people might object to.

Happy hacking!
Florian
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?

[Florian Snow]

Hi Carmen,


Carmen Bianca Bakker  writes:
> If you start treating rights and freedoms as something that can be
> negotiated individually, the "powerful" will misuse this to transfer
> the rights of the "weak" over to them.

I agree, but I see this as an issue with specific implementations.  It
might be difficult in reality to allow people to waive certain freedoms
because you cannot really tell if they were coerced in some form, but
when talking about the abstract idea of giving up rights, I think the
individual should be allowed to do that.


> I'm a staunch individualist, but the individual right to opt out of
> freedom is not one that I can comprehend or support.

I also cannot comprehend it and I am not sure I can support it in cases
where the decision cannot be reversed, but a decision for non-free
software can be reversed at any point, so I think anyone is free to
decide for non-free software even if I would recomment against it.  And
just to make this clear: I think writing non-free software is a
different question and perhaps should not happen, but I have not
completly figured that out for myself yet.  :-)

Happy hacking!
Florian
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with plugins?

[Max Mehl]

Hi Michael,

# M [2018-01-17 20:50 +0100]:

Instead of "punishing" people for using these services it would probably be
better to encourage the usage of alternatives.


My opinion exactly.


I'd be really interested if you knew any seriously recommendable
alternatives to Doodle. There is Dudle [1] which looks promising, but its
usability is pretty horrid and comes nowhere near Doodle, and sadly feature
requests do not seem to get integrated.


Yes, I've been using Framadate lately. I'm not sure which features it's
lacking in comparison to Doodle but it does everything I need for
scheduling meetings and executing smaller polls:

 https://framadate.org/
 Git: https://git.framasoft.org/framasoft/framadate

Best,
Max

--
Max Mehl - Program Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe
Contact and further information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl
Support advocacy for Free Software:  https://fsfe.org/donate
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with plugins?

[M]

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Daniel Pocock  wrote:

>
>
> On 17/01/18 18:20, André Ockers wrote:
> > Dear Daniel and list,
> >
> > Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:56:21 schreef Daniel Pocock:
> >> Nasty things like Doodle, Meetup and Facebook keep popping up throughout
> >> FSFE and the wider free software community.  Even when we discuss them,
> >> it is not long before they pop up again.
> >>
> >> When people are exposed to this elsewhere, all the time, it is not so
> >> hard to understand how the FS message is being drowned out.  Our own way
> >> of dealing with these challenges may also include some bad communication
> >> habits, undermining the effectiveness of our responses.
> >>
> >> One thing that comes to mind: are there browser plugins and Thunderbird
> >> email plugins that can help people avoid visiting or linking to things
> >> like Facebook, Meetup, Twitter and Doodle?
> >
> > With the uMatrix plugin I can enable/disable connections to websites,
> also
> > when they are backdoor third party to another website. So you can
> disable the
> > connections to e.g. FB and that works on all their websites and their
> business
> > partners. It works on IceCat, possibly also on IceDove and Firefox.
> >
>
> As well as blocking, does it give the user any encouragement to use
> alternatives?
>
> Another thing that comes to mind after reading that book: is there a way
> a plugin could reward people for doing the right thing?  Rewards are
> more effective at bringing about change than criticism.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
>
>
Instead of "punishing" people for using these services it would probably be
better to encourage the usage of alternatives.
But are there any good alteratives? These services usually have become
monopolists for a reason - usually offering the right kind of service at
the right time and place to the right audience.

I'd be really interested if you knew any seriously recommendable
alternatives to Doodle. There is Dudle [1] which looks promising, but its
usability is pretty horrid and comes nowhere near Doodle, and sadly feature
requests do not seem to get integrated.
BR
Michael

[1] https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with plugins?

[Paul Boddie]

On Wednesday 17. January 2018 11.56.21 Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> One thing that comes to mind: are there browser plugins and Thunderbird
> email plugins that can help people avoid visiting or linking to things
> like Facebook, Meetup, Twitter and Doodle?  I'm not talking about giving
> electric shocks through the keyboard, maybe just a popup alert would be
> enough.  This could be a far more effective way of helping members of
> the community improve their habits and it can step in just at the moment
> when they really need it.  The reality is, many people don't
> deliberately do these things and they would change with just a little
> bit of help.

It seems like a niche problem, really, targeting people who know that using 
Facebook and friends can be problematic, but who make other people use these 
services for the usual reasons of "convenience", "popularity", and so on. (The 
distinction between going along with someone's Doodle invitation and actively 
sending one out to others is important here.)

If people are reaching for proprietary services instead of using something 
that is free and open, and if they know that they should be using the latter 
instead of the former, particularly because they advocate things like Free 
Software to others, then is it not just a case of self-discipline and having 
some ability to reflect on one's own image and integrity? If habits are so 
deeply ingrained, then might they also need to reflect on why this is?

Perhaps the free alternatives need improvement, for example. Or perhaps people 
feel that they cannot readily convince others to break their own habits. 
Perhaps they feel bad making a point that might be considered "ideological" 
(even though it is sound).

I participate in some forums where newcomers can occasionally be seen linking 
out to Facebook. I could understand that asking people not to do that might be 
seen as unkind, given that for some people Facebook is their gateway to the 
Internet (sadly and disturbingly enough) and I would be perceived as lecturing 
them. They might not have given their use of Facebook a second thought 
because, amongst other things, "surely everyone is on it".

But then again, the whole point of such forums is to have a place that people 
fully commit to in their collaboration, and if people choose to post stuff 
elsewhere and then expect others to go there to get a complete picture of a 
discussion or collaboration, then they undermine those forums. That can upset 
the people who set such forums up, partly because it starts to look like 
people are just using them to get what they want and not give anything back.

(There are also interesting observations to be made about eBay, and how that 
can be a harmful influence within the scene in question and on those forums, 
too. When it seems like people are using a resource as an advertising medium 
to make more money, that can really focus the mind around ethics, rules, and 
what is considered acceptable behaviour.)

So, why is it that Free Software advocates want to use proprietary services? 
Are they dissatisfied with free and open solutions for a good reason? Do they 
need to set such things up and so see them as a distraction? Do they have a 
disagreement with the developers of such solutions at some level? Or are they 
just unaware that solutions exist for their needs?

This last issue is perhaps the only thing I can think of where a plugin as 
described might be genuinely helpful, but it seems to me that addressing these 
issues is a lot more constructive than administering a slap on the wrist, even 
if that is what some people might want.

Paul
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?

[Mat Witts]

On 18/01/18 13:06, Stephane Ascoet wrote:
> These are two of the main differences between libre software
> advocacies(Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond for the first, RMS for the
> second) and I think it would be hardly solved now and here..
I think the Torvalds / RMS split is an example of this internal
inconsistency playing out, yes.

I suspect though that each person is intelligent enough to see it as an
internal contradiction within the FS movement that cannot be resolved
dogmatically by either coming down on one side or the other - but ought
to be left open for individual activists to work through in their own
lives without reference to either luminary.

It seems to me there is not a black and white moral fence that we need
to jump over to acheive a fairer society but a moral and functional
gradient available, and that ought to be left to individual activists to
work out for themselves what is right for them in the conditions they
are most concerned about.

For a debian developer, having software that secretly connects to
proprietary surveillance / telemetrics would I think be totally
unacceptable, but for a 'free', progressive web app games developer, the
use of the FB API just for login for example to boost adoption may be
acceptable for them, and both ought to be able to identify fully with
the FS movement in an egalitarian way.

The point being that the role of the FS activist needs more room to
maneuver than is often admitted in forums, and apologists for modest use
of proprietary software perhaps ought not to have to contend with the
ridicule and moral crusading that comes with more zealous standards in
pursuit of an imagined utopia of total proprietary software annihilation
when a more modest goal would perhaps be better for computer users,
developers and society more generally?

The idea of 'good' and 'bad' here then is problematic because it is a
moral judgment being made about software when we know free software can
be used to accelerate terrifying consequences and also the reverse is
also true - in the case where a discussion about the benefits of free
software could easily take place on a proprietary platform like Facebook
for example.

The fundamentalist complaint then is about deflating the moral
categories of a liberal lifeworld, and turning the critique on those
that would use the rhetoric of software freedom to control and
manipulate computer users in that way, which is possibly as 'unhelpful'
(or if you like - 'reprehensible') as the 'evil' of Facebook and the likes?

If you have ever wondered why people are suspicious of the Free Software
message then this would be by wager, that the FS movement hasn't yet
reconciled its own internal contradictions on the issue of what software
freedom includes (in that it cannot exclude proprietary software on
moral grounds, but only through technical measures such as some versions
of copyleft) but until it does, not many will want to listen to the
messages Torvalds or RMS would prefer they hear?
 
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

Using technological measures to purposely prevent someone to use
non-free software, or to connect to sites not friendly to free/libre
software, if and only if for the sake of "keeping software freedom" is
indeed problematic. This paragraph must not be confused with:

- not recommending a given item;

- recommending another instead;

- refusing to give support/help upon finding out that the involved item
  is non-free;

- disabling or modifying features that would by default recommend a
  non-free item.

In free/libre software projects this kind of blockage tend to happen not
by purpose (/e.g./: GNU Linux-libre), and so are considered a bug.

2018-01-18T13:13:51+ Mat Witts wrote:
> I agree that is is not axiomatic under all conditions, and is only
> salient in restricted circumstances - for example when FS adviocates
> attempt to manipulate computer users towards software they believe is
> better (ie/ free software) or prevent people connecting to proprietary
> software (eg. like the sort of javascript etc. on Facebook).
>
> My complaint was about the obvious problem of FS advocates seeking to
> manipulate computer users, albeit in the name of freedom through the
> use of plugins etc.
>
> The comparison you make I believe is 100% apt in terms of the right
> for a human person to sell themselves into slavery if they wish, yes.
>
> I think there is an element of this in many work and life contexts -
> at least in terms of employment contracts and in the social contract
> where we agree to follow the laws of the state even if we do not agree
> with them on the grounds that if we don't, we may well be punished.
>
> Where you miss the point I think is that I am not suggesting that
> people should have the right to deny others rights and freedoms, but
> rather in pursuing the just cause of software freedom, some activists
> go to far and inflate this well-intentioned and important work into
> manipulation of computer users, which is to deny the rights and
> freedoms of others to connect to Facebook for example.
>
> This is evident through the sorts of technologies discussed in this
> thread, in preventing people from connecting to proprietary software
> in an automated fashion.
>
> I say this because I feel strongly if FS advocates give up the moral
> issue of computer user freedom and software developer freedom in their
> advocacy, then that is a self-defeating activity.
>
> In contrast to your view, I believe that unless the FS movement treats
> rights and freedoms as something that MUST be negotiated individually,
> computer user freedom and free software will be unobtainable for the
> the individuals who are being manipulated into using software (free or
> otherwise) that isn't respecting their freedoms as much as is claimed.
>
> I'm not a staunch individualist, because I believe the rights of the
> human person in some circumstances must fold into what is best for
> society, especially in areas of public health and education and so
> forth, and the options of the individual to opt out of freedom is a
> fundamental prerequisite for both liberal and not-so-liberal education
> programs everywhere.

-- 
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
  instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?

[Mat Witts]

> I don't find this argument very strong at all.

I agree that is is not axiomatic under all conditions, and is only salient in 
restricted circumstances - for example when FS adviocates attempt to manipulate 
computer users towards software they believe is better (ie/ free software) or 
prevent people connecting to proprietary software (eg. like the sort of 
javascript etc. on Facebook).

My complaint was about the obvious problem of FS advocates seeking to 
manipulate computer users, albeit in the name of freedom through the use of 
plugins etc.

The comparison you make I believe is 100% apt in terms of the right for a human 
person to sell themselves into slavery if they wish, yes.

I think there is an element of this in many work and life contexts - at least 
in terms of employment contracts and in the social contract where we agree to 
follow the laws of the state even if we do not agree with them on the grounds 
that if we don't, we may well be punished.

Where you miss the point I think is that I am not suggesting that people should 
have the right to deny others rights and freedoms, but rather in pursuing the 
just cause of software freedom, some activists go to far and inflate this 
well-intentioned and important work into manipulation of computer users, which 
is to deny the rights and freedoms of others to connect to Facebook for example.

This is evident through the sorts of technologies discussed in this thread, in 
preventing people from connecting to proprietary software in an automated 
fashion.

I say this because I feel strongly if FS advocates give up the moral issue of 
computer user freedom and software developer freedom in their advocacy, then 
that is a self-defeating activity.

In contrast to your view, I believe that unless the FS movement treats rights 
and freedoms as something that MUST be negotiated individually, computer user 
freedom and free software will be unobtainable for the the individuals who are 
being manipulated into using software (free or otherwise) that isn't respecting 
their freedoms as much as is claimed.

I'm not a staunch individualist, because I believe the rights of the human 
person in some circumstances must fold into what is best for society, 
especially in areas of public health and education and so forth, and the 
options of the individual to opt out of freedom is a fundamental prerequisite 
for both liberal and not-so-liberal education programs everywhere.

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?

[Stephane Ascoet]

Le 18/01/2018 à 12:41, Carmen Bianca Bakker a écrit :


I don't find this argument very strong at all.  What about a man's
rights to hold slaves?  What about a man's rights to sell oneself into
slavery?  I am aware that the comparison isn't 100% apt, but it relies
on the same core argument: People having the right to deny others rights
and freedoms, and people having the right to waive their rights and
freedoms.

If you start treating rights and freedoms as something that can be
negotiated individually, the "powerful" will misuse this to transfer the
rights of the "weak" over to them.

I'm a staunch individualist, but the individual right to opt out of
freedom is not one that I can comprehend or support.

Yours,

I share this. These are two of the main differences between libre 
software advocacies(Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond for the first, RMS 
for the second) and I think it would be hardly solved now and here...


--
Sincerely, Stephane Ascoet

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?

[Carmen Bianca Bakker]

Je 2018-01-18 10:30:47, Mat Witts  skribis:
> This type of complaint in the context of software is that an
> individuals or corporate's right to develop proprietary software is
> being 'drowned out' or 'silenced' by all this talk of software
> freedom.
>
> The argument is advanced by showing how exposure to free software
> either by blocking non-free, not providing non-free alternatives
> actually goes against the free exercise of computers users freedom to
> use proprietary software through denigrating it either from technical,
> moral, political, social, economic or philosophical perspectives.
>
> It seems timely to issue a reminder that all computer users must be
> allowed to opt out of Free Software too, to avoid the charge of
> contradiction or hypocrisy?
>
> Making Free Software mandatory for all and to victimize users who
> refuse to participate in Free Software is not only contradictory but
> will only marginalize users we are trying to educate.

I don't find this argument very strong at all.  What about a man's
rights to hold slaves?  What about a man's rights to sell oneself into
slavery?  I am aware that the comparison isn't 100% apt, but it relies
on the same core argument: People having the right to deny others rights
and freedoms, and people having the right to waive their rights and
freedoms.

If you start treating rights and freedoms as something that can be
negotiated individually, the "powerful" will misuse this to transfer the
rights of the "weak" over to them.

I'm a staunch individualist, but the individual right to opt out of
freedom is not one that I can comprehend or support.

Yours,

-- 
Carmen Bianca Bakker
en eo nl


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 18/01/18 11:30, Mat Witts wrote:
>> [...]
>> help people avoid visiting or linking to things like Facebook, Meetup, 
>> Twitter and Doodle?
>> [...]
> 
>> As well as blocking, does it give the user any encouragement to use
> alternatives?
> 
>> is there a way a plugin could reward people for doing the right thing?  
>> Rewards are more effective at bringing about change than criticism.
> 
> The anxiety and zeal around the adoption (or failure to adopt Free software) 
> among some programmers in the FS movement is I think a problem worthy of a 
> discussion itself since it seems to resemble the problems with 
> over-protective parenting. In Robin Norwood's 'Women Who Love Too Much' 
> (1985) we see:
> 
> 'In Praising and encouraging are very close to pushing, and when you do that 
> you are trying again to take control of his life. Think about why you are 
> lauding something he’s done. Is it to help raise his self-esteem? That's 
> manipulation. Is it so he will continue whatever behavior you're praising? 
> That's manipulation. Is it so that he'll know how proud you are of him? That 
> can be burden for him to carry. Let him develop his own pride from his own 
> accomplishments.'
> 
> There is, in short a similar potential for culture problems in the FS 
> movement which is about manipulation, control and influence over the lives of 
> computer users.
> 

Every time somebody posts a Doodle link on a mailing list somebody else
jumps on them for not using free software.

Many of these people actually want to promote free software but they are
making innocent mistakes.  They might choose to use a particular plugin
because they want to avoid making those mistakes again.  A plugin might
tell them their email includes a Doodle link before they click "Send".

If people choose to install the plugin and they already agree with the
objectives of the plugin, I wouldn't regard that as manipulation.


> My complaint then, is what I would describe as the 'FUNDAMENTALISTS 
> COMPLAINT' as in MOZERT V. HAWKINS.
>  
> Discussions about software freedom don't always result in freedom for the 
> user in the same way that the local school board in Hawkins County, Tennessee 
> in this case ended up being charged with denigrating a families religious 
> views.
> 
> This type of complaint in the context of software is that an individuals or 
> corporate's right to develop proprietary software is being 'drowned out' or 
> 'silenced' by all this talk of software freedom.
> 
> The argument is advanced by showing how exposure to free software either by 
> blocking non-free, not providing non-free alternatives actually goes against 
> the free exercise of computers users freedom to use proprietary software 
> through denigrating it either from technical, moral, political, social, 
> economic or philosophical perspectives. 
> 
> It seems timely to issue a reminder that all computer users must be allowed 
> to opt out of Free Software too, to avoid the charge of contradiction or 
> hypocrisy?
> 
> Making Free Software mandatory for all and to victimize users who refuse to 
> participate in Free Software is not only contradictory but will only 
> marginalize users we are trying to educate.
> 
> Facebook users are not seeking to impose their ideas on the FS movement and 
> generally do not have a problem with FS in principle or in practice.
> 
> These objections are at the heart of the Free Software movement and it's 
> important to keep in mind that Free Software will only grow if computer users 
> are exposed to it without being asked to give up proprietary software 
> entirely.
> 
> It's astonishing that the possibility of the ideal predicated on the complete 
> annihilation of proprietary software is so prevalent and is misinforming so 
> many FS activists.
> 
> It seems to me we should pay attention to the gains we have already made and 
> concentrate on those, and worry less about facebook users and the like and 
> trying to 'convert' them to a particularly disagreeable form of software 
> freedom which is more about computer user manipulation than computer user 
> freedom?
> 

Once again, people would choose to install the plugin.  Of course,
organizations could make it mandatory for their staff to use the plugin
but otherwise people are free to choose the plugins they install.

If people do make the decision they want the help of such a plugin then
it is important to make the plugin as useful as possible for them.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with, plugins?

[Mat Witts]

> [...]
> help people avoid visiting or linking to things like Facebook, Meetup, 
> Twitter and Doodle?
> [...]

> As well as blocking, does it give the user any encouragement to use
alternatives?

> is there a way a plugin could reward people for doing the right thing?  
> Rewards are more effective at bringing about change than criticism.

The anxiety and zeal around the adoption (or failure to adopt Free software) 
among some programmers in the FS movement is I think a problem worthy of a 
discussion itself since it seems to resemble the problems with over-protective 
parenting. In Robin Norwood's 'Women Who Love Too Much' (1985) we see:

'In Praising and encouraging are very close to pushing, and when you do that 
you are trying again to take control of his life. Think about why you are 
lauding something he’s done. Is it to help raise his self-esteem? That's 
manipulation. Is it so he will continue whatever behavior you're praising? 
That's manipulation. Is it so that he'll know how proud you are of him? That 
can be burden for him to carry. Let him develop his own pride from his own 
accomplishments.'

There is, in short a similar potential for culture problems in the FS movement 
which is about manipulation, control and influence over the lives of computer 
users.

My complaint then, is what I would describe as the 'FUNDAMENTALISTS COMPLAINT' 
as in MOZERT V. HAWKINS.
 
Discussions about software freedom don't always result in freedom for the user 
in the same way that the local school board in Hawkins County, Tennessee in 
this case ended up being charged with denigrating a families religious views.

This type of complaint in the context of software is that an individuals or 
corporate's right to develop proprietary software is being 'drowned out' or 
'silenced' by all this talk of software freedom.

The argument is advanced by showing how exposure to free software either by 
blocking non-free, not providing non-free alternatives actually goes against 
the free exercise of computers users freedom to use proprietary software 
through denigrating it either from technical, moral, political, social, 
economic or philosophical perspectives. 

It seems timely to issue a reminder that all computer users must be allowed to 
opt out of Free Software too, to avoid the charge of contradiction or hypocrisy?

Making Free Software mandatory for all and to victimize users who refuse to 
participate in Free Software is not only contradictory but will only 
marginalize users we are trying to educate.

Facebook users are not seeking to impose their ideas on the FS movement and 
generally do not have a problem with FS in principle or in practice.

These objections are at the heart of the Free Software movement and it's 
important to keep in mind that Free Software will only grow if computer users 
are exposed to it without being asked to give up proprietary software entirely.

It's astonishing that the possibility of the ideal predicated on the complete 
annihilation of proprietary software is so prevalent and is misinforming so 
many FS activists.

It seems to me we should pay attention to the gains we have already made and 
concentrate on those, and worry less about facebook users and the like and 
trying to 'convert' them to a particularly disagreeable form of software 
freedom which is more about computer user manipulation than computer user 
freedom?

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with plugins?

[Theo Schmidt]

Am 17.01.2018 um 18:20 schrieb André Ockers:
...
> With the uMatrix plugin I can enable/disable connections to
> websites, also when they are backdoor third party to another
> website. So you can disable the connections to e.g. FB and that
> works on all their websites and their business partners. It works
> on IceCat, possibly also on IceDove and Firefox.

Would it also allow me to "kill" the connection to a tab in Firefox
and Co.? I often have the problem that a crumby website blocks Firefox
(or Palemoon) completely and I have to "kill" Firefox. Would this help
here?

Cheers, Theo
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with plugins?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 17/01/18 18:20, André Ockers wrote:
> Dear Daniel and list,
> 
> Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:56:21 schreef Daniel Pocock:
>> Nasty things like Doodle, Meetup and Facebook keep popping up throughout
>> FSFE and the wider free software community.  Even when we discuss them,
>> it is not long before they pop up again.
>>
>> When people are exposed to this elsewhere, all the time, it is not so
>> hard to understand how the FS message is being drowned out.  Our own way
>> of dealing with these challenges may also include some bad communication
>> habits, undermining the effectiveness of our responses.
>>
>> One thing that comes to mind: are there browser plugins and Thunderbird
>> email plugins that can help people avoid visiting or linking to things
>> like Facebook, Meetup, Twitter and Doodle?  
> 
> With the uMatrix plugin I can enable/disable connections to websites, also 
> when they are backdoor third party to another website. So you can disable the 
> connections to e.g. FB and that works on all their websites and their 
> business 
> partners. It works on IceCat, possibly also on IceDove and Firefox.
> 

As well as blocking, does it give the user any encouragement to use
alternatives?

Another thing that comes to mind after reading that book: is there a way
a plugin could reward people for doing the right thing?  Rewards are
more effective at bringing about change than criticism.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion