[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: “should have had a warning / apology”

From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: “should have had a warning / apology”
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:32:32 -0700

On 2019-10-12 10:13 a.m., Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> Aaron Wolf <> wrote:
>> On 2019-10-12 3:20 a.m., Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>>> Aaron Wolf <> wrote:
>>>> MBR posted a Facebook link (which should have had a warning/apology 
>>>> perhaps)
>>> I beg my pardon?  Warning of / apology for what?
>> Just like "sorry for Facebook link" or something (because Facebook is a 
>> company that works against most of the values we care about here).
> Well, a good half of the Internet work against or at least contributes 
> something against freedom of computing.  I do not think that _we_ have to 
> apologize for them.
>> I checked just now that this particular link is visible publicly without 
>> JavaScript though, so I guess it's not too bad, relatively speaking.
> Basically, it is not bad at all. :-)
> But do you mean, that Facebook have other pages that are not readable without 
> running nonfree scripts?

Unlike Twitter, it can be common to have Facebook links that people
assume are basically public and visible but get blocked by requirement
to sign-in. I'm not sure about the Javascript issues per se.

And I generally do apologies (and promote such habits) when I use or
prompt others to engage with entities I feel are harmful overall. To be
specific to software freedom, instead of an absolute of never suggesting
or using any proprietary software ever, I make compromises to be
practical but I *acknowledge* and *apologize* for them. They aren't my
fault, but I'm promoting *awareness* of the problem and refusing to
spread the idea that using non-free software is just fine and normal.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]