[skore]

Wow, that's quite a straw man you have there.

Washing machines are tools. Facebook is a platform. If Mr. Moglen was attacking the postal service or mobile phones, you'd have a point. But he is talking about a centralized service that gives unprecedented power to the ones in control of the service and the jurisdictions it falls under.

I can stand in front of my washing machine and say, with total clarity, that I'm the only one in charge of it at that time. If I had a facebook account, there would be no such thing. And that doesn't even get to Mr. Moglens deeper point - that usage of facebook spreads the problem into your social graph.

As for the "facebook revolutions" you cite - that's quite a rosy picture you paint there. In reality, those services were used to track protesters and there have been coordinating handouts urging participants not to use social media for that reason. Furthermore, after these 'revolutions' have cooled down, it's still unclear what we will end up with. I would conclude that at most, those services served as catalysts and their convenience came at quite a cost indeed. But it's not Arab Youth + Facebook = Functioning Democracy.

[nl]

My response is far from a strawman.

Moglen pointed out all the problems with Facebook (and Twitter) without showing the benefits.

[skore]

So you say it's not a straw man. Maybe you have some more words left to explain yourself on that point?

He was asked for the problems. It's not his job to advertise social networking services.

One of the big figures of Software Freedom is asked about the drawbacks of social networking services and you start your argument with saying that he doesn't talk about the benefits. And then you compare the drawbacks to the ecological damage of washing machines (with the recent advances in efficiency, nobody is making as strong a point against them as you are trying to force). Nope, sorry, that's a straw man. And a very weak one at that.

I think if anything, having those three big issues out there (privacy violations, tracking by government, careless spreading of the two into the social graph), Mr. Moglen would be correct to say that the cost is already too great to be weighed against with any benefits.

[nl]

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I don't think I misrepresented Moglen's position in anyway. He only spoke about the negative aspects of social networking, but nothing about the conveniences. Argument by analogy isn't a strawman.

I agree that recent advances in washing machines have improved them, and that the environmental impact of them is far outweighed by the convenience.

Indeed, that is my point.

For me - and many others - the convenience and advantages of social networking outweighs the costs. I make that decision in full knowledge of those costs, and I think it is fair to point out that there are advantages as well as costs.

[skore]

Mr. Moglen is well known to speak against and was asked to comment on the drawbacks of social networks. You are attacking a straw man if you complain that he isn't talking about the benefits.

    Person A: Sunny days are good.
    Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.
    Problem: B has misrepresented A's claim by falsely suggesting that A claimed that only sunny days are good, and then B refuted the misrepresented version of the claim, rather than refuting A's original assertion.

You are picking a discussion that Mr. Moglen was not having.

The benefits of social networks are self evident - they enable communication in an unprecedented way. His argument is that the drawbacks he is talking about are unnecessary and dangerous and that some of the technology may seem useful, but is actually just thinly disguised non-social behavior ("keeping up" with somebody may border on "stalking"). You have not addressed any of his arguments while complaining that he didn't address points that nobody was discussing to begin with.

So yes, one more, final, time - your argument is a straw man.

[nl]

Wait - so I'm not allowed to attack omissions in his arguments?

That's like saying when Rick Santorum points out what he sees as problems with gay marriage no one can point out the benefits because it is a strawman.

That's ridiculous!

[skore]

Alright, this is moving quickly into troll territory. One final reply:

The premise of the article we are discussing was this:

"My editor wanted a quote from a privacy advocate, so I immediately thought of Eben “Spying for Free” Moglen, a militant digital privacy advocate, founder of the uber-secure personal server FreedomBox, and the inspiration for the decentralized social network Diaspora."

Eben Moglen was asked for his statement as a privacy advocate. There is nothing to be said about facebook in terms of being a privacy advocate. Except for maybe "sure wish they'd try some!". And that's the end of your argument right there.

Eben Moglen argues that facebook is bad because of the gross privacy violations it institutionalized. His argument is perfectly sound and coherent and doesn't need any forced "balancing" to be valid. He is not omitting any facts to make his argument.

You are welcome to argue against it, but you have instead chosen to act as though his argument is moot because he didn't make yours. That's not how arguments work.

Your 'Rick Santorum' point boggles the mind. Rick Santorum is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs. You could now attack a point completely unrelated or only superficially related to his rants about gay marriage and that would be a straw man. You could also, however, argue for or against his points with your own argument.

[kelnos]

Except that Moglen is effectively saying that it would be good if every day was a sunny day. He's taking the absolutist position that social networks are always bad and anyone who uses them is a part of the problem.

[skore]

'effectively' being the key word here. You are estimating this to be his position, but it is not.

See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1349229 "Diaspora team takes on Eben Moglen as informal advisor"

[pingswept]

> Maybe you have some more words left to explain yourself on that point?

You could make the same point more civilly.

[skore]

I apologize for being slightly uncivil (although I saw it as stating my question deliberately terse), but "it's not a straw man" isn't really a good response against a claim that your argument is a straw man, don't you think?

[pingswept]

Apology accepted. I do agree that "it's not a straw man" is a weak rebuttal, but that's more reason to keep the tone civil-- so that people will argue with you sensibly.