# mray [2017-07-25 22:02 +0200]:
On 25.07.2017 21:44, mray wrote:
Reaching people isn't the end goal. Just like market share isn't. We are about freedom. What if I asked FSFE to tweet its take on using twitter? Wouldn' the honest tweet be:
"You should not use twitter as it is a walled garden and proprietary software."
No doubt, Twitter is a proprietary product, and people shouldn't be forced to use it (if they choose to do so it's their free decision but they should know about the consequences). I hope I never implied that the FSFE might have a different opinion.
Turns out I don't have to wait for this as the FSFE website says: "Some services may be Free Software unfriendly and harm your privacy."
For reference: this text links to the wiki page https://wiki.fsfe.org/Advocacy/ProprietaryWebServices
I guess the unfriendly harming refers to twitter and facebook, less to GNUsocial and Diaspora. My impression was there was **no doubt** about harm being done. Aren't we framing it a bit opportunistic here?
Good point. While I'm certain that Facebook and Twitter are harmful to its users' privacy, I'm not sure about Reddit or HackerNews. That's why at the top of the wiki page there is:
*Attention*: This page is far from perfect and it needs your help to improve it. Furthermore, the lists of alternatives are incomplete probably.
So please help us gathering more information about these services. But even if we had more information we could never be sure that using Diaspora or GNU Social doesn't harm a user's privacy because much of it depends on a pod's administrator. And in my opinion, the "may harm" wording provokes some kind of critical thinking: a social network user should never feel too confident, even if an organisation like FSFE told her that service A or B is safe. Would you understand the current wording the same way? If not, what would you propose instead?
Best, Max