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.

Now, and interesting question to ask is: Is facebook a potato or a virus?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.