bigbugbag

The explanation is simple, twitter and facebook rely on ads to make profit. to maximize their profit they need to have people spend as much time as possible on their websites.

The most efficient way is to infuriate people. Hence the business model of these companies is to have people outraged and infuriated.

This is a similar strategy to using the media spread fear so people consume more. Simply said someone who's happy, live a fulfilling life free of worry does not feel the urge to buy and consume.

A forum is an online place or media where you have social interaction, hence a social media.

You control idea by controling the language. It turns the internet is actually the social media and each and every thing online is de facto also a social media.

Email is a social media, a blog is a social media, bbs is a social media, usenet is a social media, a forum is a social media, a wiki is a social media, and so on.

The name social media is a marketing ploy akin to the "cloud" to manipulate opinion and mind into thinking a certain way about large companies whose business is massively collecting user personal data without providing any meaningful service other than sitting in between the people wanting to interact.

It's a good old switcheroo. When you hear "social media" you could actually revert it back to "the internet" as it used be. But when you hear social media you actually think facebook / twitter, which means the marketing ploy succeeded in its attempt of replacing the internet by facebook/twitter.

And it's not only the word, facebook has actually tried to replace the internet in several countries, notably with the facebook basics program outrageously disrespecting net neutrality. But a few companies are also quite literally replacing the internet infrastructure by their own and the decentralized distributed design by a centralized one.

"I'm used by Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram, and I feel down!"

-- most of the planet.

As someone who clearly saw the shortcomings of facebook from the get go and as a consequence never bother to register, I wonder what are the upsides you mention.

Facebook is mostly a birthday reminder feature hidden in a glorified walled garden email, its whole point is vacuuming personal data and find ways to make as much profit as possible with it.

IMHO email is vastly superior to facebook as it is open and offers interoperability.

Because he had his facebook.

When you outsource you usually lose in resiliency.

You misinterpreted something here.

The phone data is partial data as it is from a single mobile phone networks out of the four. It has been since updated to 2 out of the 4 (the other two supposedly respect their customer privacy). These number are not about Paris, which has a population of around 2 millions people, but for the whole metropolitan area.

For the actual city of Paris 600 000 people left the city in a matter of days in relation to the lockdown announcement, or about 27% of population. https://www.insee.fr/fr/information/4477356

27% of paris inhabitants left the city overnight based on phone data from 2 of the 4 french mobile phone networks.

I'm unsure of what the number would be if we added the other two phone operators and the people who wanted to leave but could. But this would probably not amount to "most".

source: https://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/confinement-plus-de-25000... and https://www.insee.fr/fr/information/4477356

Boogaloos have killed cops and are suspected to have open fire on crowds during protests.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/17/facebook-shuts-down-g...

It seems you forgot the point that the probability of comet falling is increased by people wearing bike helmet.

You might want to listen the "science vs" episode dedicated to guns for some actual science behind it and the role of guns in violent crime: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/z3hlvr

What are you suggesting in (II) ? that if she had a gun the would have left her alone? sorry but this is not how harrassing works. That if she had shot him she would have fixed the issue ? sorry but she would be in a very different world of issue if she shot him. Really I fail to see how a gun would be a solution or even help in this situation.

In (III) it seems that you really got lucky. Had those people been armed you'd probably be dead or severely injured, as you pointed out you stand no chance against 5 people firing at you. If you spooked them that's because they had no intent to harm you and you probably could have spooked them without the sound of a gun. BTW the gun was only a musical instrument and you could have played a recording of pumping a gun to the same result.

(IV) Really a bad analogy here. Using a fire extinguisher the way it is intended can only help prevent a situation becoming catastrophic, using a weapon for what is has been designed and the way it is intended can only end in an aggravated situation. Then the justifying something using a tautology is simply failing to justify it. What I gather from this is that you have a firm belief in guns and that there is no alternative, akin to religious belief.

The US seems to fare better. In rural EU there is simply no police to answer an emergency outside office hours. Your call is routed to a station distant of over a hundred kilometers, if they sent you their response team not only would it arrive too late but then they'd have no one to send to local emergencies. You're told to take pictures and to report to the closest station during opening hours the next day.

Heck we even had art stealers removing a several tons statue that was literally in front of that police station in the middle of the night, this town bank ATMs where blasted so many times that the banks just stopped replacing them.

It's been decades that everyone has stopped thinking that the governement cares or would send help if anything happened.

But despite the local context being worse than in the US for much longer, still there is no neighbourhood watch and the only people who have guns are hunters and the idea of needing guns to defend ourselves is quite uncommon.

To me this is a big failure where you advertise a larger competitor for free while not helping the clueless visitor trying to understand what your software does.

I came to darktable website to learn what darktable does not that there is another piece software that I do not know which does a somewhat similar thing but in a different manner.

not only this is not helping the clueless visitor, but it is advertising a major competitor and shows your software as being inferior to this commercial competitor.

IMHO not mentioning lightroom is a smart move, I discovered darktable without having any knowledge of lightroom for the simple reason that adode products do not exist on Linux. Also I should mention that I use darktable as an alternative to gimp which I chose as an alternative to photoshop 5 when I made the switch to linux.

This to point out that you should not presume of how people use software either, expecially with software that can cover some many different uses as photoshop.

Why would I use firefox when mozilla has repeatedly lied to me, pretended to care for privacy while making moves to invade it, removed support for features I relied upon, refused to consider linux as worth their time, forced telemetry surveillance upon those who specifically disabled it, dropped what made firefox useful in an attempt to be more chrome-like, etc.

The list goes on and on, mozilla has a terrible record and proved multiple times that it should not be trusted.

After the pulseaudio debacle and after being a supporter since its first steps, I quit firefox and removed it from all computers I maintain to never return. There is no thing mozilla can say or do that will make me go back to firefox, apart from acknowledging their role and taking responsibility by resigning and releasing firefox to the world.

Examples that came as an afterthought after admitting this was not about Stallman and misrepresenting his words.

She did not correct her misrepresentation but instead went on to publish in an appendix what had been dugged and nitpicked to paint RMS in a way that fit her narrative.

the appendix is easy to debunk:

1 can be summarized as RMS has opinions, his personal opinions not being the same as the majority means they are problematic (use a reversal of burden of proof fallacy in the process). Goes on to says that institutions/companies that do not remove people with personal opinions different from the majority should be removed from the institutions otherwise it should be interpreted that the institutions themselves support those opinions. Of course totally overlooks the fact if instead of public shaming, calling for witch hunt and not talking with the person, having a fact-based conversation with the person about his/her opinion could be enough to change this opinion as had happened here: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

2 is a collection of applying today standard to 40 years old society, expectation of normal behaviour to someone in the autistic spectrum and leaving the reader to fill the holes when the reason for having a mattress in his office and being proud of it is long documented and unrelated to the sexual framing attempt. Then she presents a 1983 report pointing how it was for women is CS at MIT at the time which makes no mention of RMS in any way but is nevertheless add as charge to him.

3. Goes on to put RMS in the same bag with Epstein, and mentions #metoo as if RMS had been mentioned in it with no explanation and no evidence. Rants about MIT and calls for other institutions to go on witch hunts on threat of chaos such as the one she just caused.

4. is about her personal life and how she felt in social context trying to diminish her efforts and accomplishment, how she is desensitized and prepared for escalation from Stallman but disappointed that he did not and instead went on to apologize. Unhappy with the apology and impervious to the fact that she is responsible and the cause for the misunderstanding and the media coverage, she uses this apology as a call to other people to take her action as a model and fight the powerful people.

So as a whole this appendix is really not more evidence that the original author missed the point and further attacked a wrongly perceived threat and as a result polarized further against RMS and her.

you seem to assume there was assault from Minsky on Giufre, and I wonder where you get that idea.

I'm part of the people who do not want sexual assault trivialized and for that to happen not making inconsiderate use of the term is important to not strip it of its meaning.

After having read the court documentation, I have yet to see any evidence that Minsky assaulted Giufre, heck there's not even any indication he did have sex with her, only that she was directed to by Ms. Maxwell.

I've read the same emails and I agree with the previous comment. Despite english not being my mother tongue, it is clear what RMS is saying and there's no room for interpretating his words differently without misinterpreting or changing what he meant.

RMS words can not do massive injustice as they are words not judges, besides his words are actually expressing an attempt to correct a perceived injustice of misqualifying some accusation toward a dead guy that cannot defend himself.

Actually the headlines fits exactly the point RMS is making, that if she was forced, Epstein was the one not Minsky. Then again do not stop at the headline, read the whole article and read the source used for the article, there is no mention of the use of force, the only mentions of her being forced to have sex are with different persons and contradicts her earlier 2011 allegations (page 33). The part mentioning Minsky does not even confirm she actually had sex with him, only that she was sent to by Ms Maxwell (page 182). So I guess you are right there's absolutely no question here, but not in the direction that would fit your narrative and opinion.

> https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20.... Obsolete, already been updated in other comments: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

> https://twitter.com/0xabad1dea/status/1172545166953066497 self proclaimed SJW reposting the original medium article misrepresenting RMS words and adding nothing.

> https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/994010501460865025 Someone who make unsourced claims of having refused to contribute to anything with an open license because of RMS poor taste jokes on mailing list. I wonder if this kind of openmindedness is good to prove a point on how RMS is bad, maybe someone who does not want to contribute to software improving the world but unrelated to RMS on the sole basis that the licensing allows other freedom is not a good basis to support RMS having to be removed.

> https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265 A reply to the previous tweet from someone who was told an unsourced myth about plants in an office and making up a story about it. She said she's been shown one office with a lot of plants, told that there are many other such offices, that the reason for the plants is to ward off RMS. This piece of lore has been removed from wikipedia for lack of source[1]

>https://mobile.twitter.com/quince/status/1172290839369773057 also citing the same original medium publication misrepresenting RMS words and calling for his removal on this basis, admitting she actually never met RMS but tells how the same piece of myth was transmitted to her in form of a joke and despite not knowing tries to provide context for trying to ward off RMS: interacting with him is awkward and make them uneasy. I sincerely doubt that RMS being socially awkward is news or supporting the call for his removal in any way.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Stallman/Archive_...

> They wrote awful words, and put them in his mouth, in order to support a narrative in which he said something which he didn't.

Actually they did not do that, they simply parroted what had been posted on medium by Selam G.[0] in her call to remove Stallman[1].

Not trying to defend the media, they clearly did not do their job of fact-checking and jumped of the bandwagon of making outrageous headlines to make money, but the actual responsibility of misrepresenting RMS words to call for his removal lies on the original author.

[0]https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/author/selamie/ [1] https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

I disagree, it feels like a witch hunt because it is one.

I read the original post that started this witch hunt and my baloney detector went off all along, in particular when I read the quote from RMs stating one thing and the author calling for his removal misrepresenting and misunderstanding them as if they said the exact opposite.

Thing is here, RMS was talking about an accusation being misqualified in relation to Mens Rea and some person took offense and misrepresented his words to present him as saying something else[1].

Then again I beg to differ, the vast majority of people do not live in the US and have different local definition of underage, also the US has a reputation for having a fascination for sex with teenager (one of the most popular porn sites categories during the last 25-30 years).

[1]:https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

the implication is that he slept in his office. Common among hackers and people with a passion for computing, also 1970's

If you read the medium post the author admits she had no idea who Stallman is and that it was not really about him, and instead of admitting she was wrong on several point she went on and digged some stuff and put them together trying to paint RMS in a way that fit her accusation and her call for his removal.

Coming from someone who admits to have written out of anger accumulated from different personal experience, admitting she iss after someone she had no idea who he is, who misrepresented what was said to fit her views and narrative, I would not give much credit to anything that was added afterwards in this appendix.

the headlines are just parroting what had been written in the call for removal of Stallman published on medium:

https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

RMS is being used because of cluelessness of the person who called for his removal:

"This was not, actually, all that much about Richard Stallman. Stallman was just the last straw. This was really about all the times I have heard about a classmate’s advisor crushing her dreams, about Seth Lloyd mocking female students, the number of women alumni that were too jaded to feel surprised by this revelation, the story I read from a 1987 alumn about the trauma she experienced at the MIT and the world of that era. This was really about everything that has come out before and after the Epstein revelations, before and after Richard Stallman’s emails.

Did I even really know who Richard Stallman was before those emails? To be honest, not really — I’m a mechanical engineer who didn’t pay enough attention, apparently."

https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

Yes, and the leak is from the author who first made the public call to remove Stallman while stating that she has no idea who he is.

https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

I've been solicited for sex by random teenagers and young adults on a regular basis in North Africa, eastern Europe and Asia outside of coercion and trafficking despite not being close to be famous or having significant amount of money.

Simply based looking like I'm from a part of the world where life is not as difficult seems to be enough for a number of people living there to take a chance. I could also feel how I was the focus of attention of many who did not dare but were considering making the move. A very strange and creepy experience.

And that was in the streets and public places, I'd expect that in the context of a private party the teenagers who managed to get their way in to be daring enough and trying harder, so I guess we have different views based on different personal experience.

It's sad when people are blinded by anger and cannot read a sentence properly and understand what is meant.

I'll repost here a comment found under the original source that started this misinterpretation of words:

I want to point out a problem: The article claims that Stallman states

    (…)that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.

I think this is a misinterpretation of what he said; it doesn’t change things for the most part, but what he said is at least understandable, if still fairly awful.

His claim, which I don’t really believe is well-founded (but that’s beside the point at this instant) was:

    (…)the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.

(emphasis mine)

That is, as far as I understand, he’s stating it’s most likely that Epstein coerced her into the situation, but that she led Minsky to believe it was of her own free will — and, while I (and I suspect many other people) don’t see where Stallman gets that idea, and it isn’t necessarily the case here, I would assume we can all agree that in such a case, the individual wouldn’t be guilty of rape (due to a lack of mens rea, that is, not knowing that the person was being coerced). In short: he never states that an enslaved child could be ‘entirely willing’, merely that someone lacking relevant information could believe an enslaved child was entirely willing (requiring them to neither know the individual is enslaved nor that they are a child — which is possible for someone who’s 17 years old)

Not trying to defend them for not doing journlism and being unable to understand a simple sentence but these 'news' outlet just copied what had been written in the medium publication calling for the removal of Stallman[1]:

"…and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. Let’s also note that he called a group of child sex trafficking victims a ‘harem’, a terrible word choice."

[1]: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

I get your point but it is your local and anecdotal evidence.

In the era of mechanization adult men were replaced in factories by children as young as 6 years old and it was considered a great progress because they could be paid much less and do the same job. Is that fair ?

Before school was made mandatory at 17 you had been an active part of the work force for 10-12 years. was that fair ?

At 17 you can be drafted and sent to war to be killed, fair ?

A couple generation ago at 17 you had been working to bring money to the family for several years.

Problem is that fairness is a human made artificial concept, looking at the human societies almost nothing is fair in them, it's mostly about perpetuating hierarchical structure of power and domination, exploitation and competition. The few examples of success through fairness and cooperation comes from the wild that we collectively work so hard to eradicate.

As if 2019 was a model of how we should live, of ethics and morality. It is simple to point that 2019 is actually the opposite of a what we should do and very close to a model of what we should not do, especially if we care for our children and the future of living on the only planet we have.

In a society which on one hand is prudish and on the other oversexualizing everything as a marketing plot including young children, it seems logical and expected to have this kind of issues.