Thank you for your thoughtful replay, Florian :) I agree with your assessment of Mozilla's motives. Under the premises you described, I guess personally I'm fine with FSFE keeping the profile. I guess my point was, if FSFE wanted to delete (or "pause") their profile, now would have been a good opportunity (because we just found out about a massive data breach).
Am 23.03.2018 um 17:48 schrieb Florian Snow: > Hi Jonke, > > I can't help but feel this is a PR stunt from Mozilla. Facebook > recently had a privacy scandal, but Facebook is the same it has always > been. Asking them to reform their business is pointless because they > make money tracking users, so they can't stop tracking them. Also, at > the end of the message, Mozilla asks people to use Twitter instead and > while Twitter does not ask for photos of users and names and such, it is > still able to track users through the web. So in my opinion, Mozilla is > not all that serious here. > > On a sidenote, I think Facebook is a symptom of a privacy issue we as a > society have, but one that is currently starting to fail. Not because > people realized it tracks them, but because they are choosing to be > tracked by someone else. A lot of young people do not use Facebook > anymore, they use Snapchat and the likes and that is why Facebook had to > buy Whatsapp - to stay relevant. > > Regarding your implied question of whether the FSFE should have a > Facebook account, my answer is still yes, under certain conditions. > First of all, the FSFE is an organization, not a person (and no, > corporations are also not people!), so being tracked has completely > different implications. The FSFE as a legal entity is not entitled to > privacy or any other human rights so our information is mostly public > anyway (and should be). What we should not do is tell other people to > sign up for Facebook. That is why it is important for us to always > clearly state (on Facebook or whichever privacy-troubled platform) that > we do not support the platform and that people should not sign up for > it. That way, we make clear that our presence on the platform is not a > stamp of approval. We also need to make sure there is never any content > from us on those platforms before it is also on other platforms so > people always have a privacy respecting source available. > > If we meet those conditions, I think we can gain from being on platforms > like Facebook because we can reach people that we would not reach > otherwise and hopefully, in the process, they will become more aware of > Facebook's privacy issues. I think we should have a voice of dissent on > a platform we find problematic instead of leaving it to voices of > approval. Or to put it another way: If you want to warn people about > the dangers of X, you need to talk to people who use X (and X can be > anything: non-free software, drugs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). > > I didn't arrive at this position lightly: I want the FSFE to be a > beacon of freedom and privacy. I want the FSFE to always bahave in > accordance with its principles. For a long time, that made me think we > should not be on platforms like Facebook, but then I realized the > different implications if we as an organization are on Facebook or we as > a community: I think the former can be done in accordance with our > principles, but not the latter. > > Happy hacking! > Florian _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct