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.

That's not true. You can criticize that which you respect, in order to improve it.

Yes, let's criticize arbitrary off-topic things ad infinitum, because we can.

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?