the ethical social network

[judith]

Hi all,

in the last few years, many social networks appeared on the Internet. Some
of them define themselves as free (as in free speech), while others don't
care about their users fundamental rights.

I think it's time to sort them with a definition.

This is the reason why I tried to write down the concept of ethical social
network.



I. The ethical social network

Ethical is not about price, neither about the only freedom of the source
code. It is about the recognition and the respect of user freedoms:

- to recognize and respect the privacy of all communications exchanged by
users,
- to recognize and guarantee the same rights to every user,
- to only distribute to users free software,
- to allow full interoperability towards other social networks.

II. How to respect those freedoms?

First: the communication protocol

The communication protocol must be open.

Second: the software

The software specific to the social network must be under a free software
licence, as its dependencies. The whole software distribution, including
the server part, must be available to users.

Three: the respect of the user data privacy

Each user should use his own servers.

The communication protocol of the social network and software must let the
user be able to decide freely, clearly and efficiently what to do with
each of his data and his account: the user may decide for each
communication who are the recipients, even possibly the general public.

Users must be warned constantly that once they publish their data, those
may be known to the general public, including current or future employers
and the government.

Concerning the data hosted on other servers than the user's own, the delay
to delete a post or to close an account must be quick once the user
requests it. The closure or the deletion must be definitive, no data must
be available to the social network once it is done.

Four: the social network services

Every service available to users through the social network should not
appropriate users data or track them.

What do you think about it? Any suggestions?

Judith Lukoki
[phone]

[David Gerard]

Post by judith
This is the reason why I tried to write down the concept of ethical social
network.
I. The ethical social network
II. How to respect those freedoms?

This is important and necessary, but not sufficient. One of the big
problems with social network software is that it must not only be free
- it has to actually offer reasonable security to the nontechnical.

Freedom is insufficient - it actually has to be technically good,
because it'll be used by nontechies out on the hostile Internet.

This is something I'm seeing a lot. People disgruntled with Facebook,
and newly disgruntled with Google+, are advocating Diaspora. But
Diaspora is horribly shoddy software deep in its architecture:

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/09/22/security-lessons-learned-from-the-diaspora-launch/

with no visible security architecture (these are all the same post,
with three discussions):

http://oda.dreamwidth.org/2828.html
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102376799902430080799/posts/GHg5nZRHbUA
https://joindiaspora.com/posts/404422

I would go so far as to say that advocating it to nontechnical users -
the typical user disgruntled with Facebook or Google - is presently
the *wrong* thing to do, because they simply don't know enough to
protect themselves from its problems, and would be exchanging a single
threatening agent (the large company attempting to monetise their
click trail) for an unlimited number of threatening agents (every
griefer on the Internet).


- d.

[judith]

I propose to add that the software must be secure. Any flaw should be
fixed as soon as possible.

Post by David Gerard

Post by judith
This is the reason why I tried to write down the concept of ethical social
network.
I. The ethical social network
II. How to respect those freedoms?

This is important and necessary, but not sufficient. One of the big
problems with social network software is that it must not only be free
- it has to actually offer reasonable security to the nontechnical.
Freedom is insufficient - it actually has to be technically good,
because it'll be used by nontechies out on the hostile Internet.
This is something I'm seeing a lot. People disgruntled with Facebook,
and newly disgruntled with Google+, are advocating Diaspora. But
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/09/22/security-lessons-learned-from-the-diaspora-launch/
with no visible security architecture (these are all the same post,
http://oda.dreamwidth.org/2828.html
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102376799902430080799/posts/GHg5nZRHbUA
https://joindiaspora.com/posts/404422
I would go so far as to say that advocating it to nontechnical users -
the typical user disgruntled with Facebook or Google - is presently
the *wrong* thing to do, because they simply don't know enough to
protect themselves from its problems, and would be exchanging a single
threatening agent (the large company attempting to monetise their
click trail) for an unlimited number of threatening agents (every
griefer on the Internet).
- d.
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Judith Lukoki
[phone]
http://www.movingyouth.eu

[Timo Juhani Lindfors]

Post by judith
I propose to add that the software must be secure. Any flaw should be
fixed as soon as possible.

It also has to be easy to use or you won't get non-technical people on
board. I think this is what diaspora sort of got right.

[judith]

This part "The communication protocol and software of the social network
must let the user be able to decide freely, clearly and efficiently what
to do with each of his data and his account: the user may decide for each
communication who are the recipients, even possibly the general public."
should already takes care of the usability issue.

What do you think?

Post by Timo Juhani Lindfors

Post by judith
I propose to add that the software must be secure. Any flaw should be
fixed as soon as possible.

It also has to be easy to use or you won't get non-technical people on
board. I think this is what diaspora sort of got right.
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Judith Lukoki
[phone]

[Kim Tucker]

Hi all,

A few relevant links of relevance to this topic:

http://wiki.autonomo.us/Main_Page

http://fcforum.net/en/charter

http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox

and possibly: http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2011/07/unlike-us/

K

----

Post by judith
Hi all,
in the last few years, many social networks appeared on the Internet. Some
of them define themselves as free (as in free speech), while others don't
care about their users fundamental rights.
I think it's time to sort them with a definition.
This is the reason why I tried to write down the concept of ethical social
network.
I. The ethical social network
Ethical is not about price, neither about the only freedom of the source
- to recognize and respect the privacy of all communications exchanged by
users,
- to recognize and guarantee the same rights to every user,
- to only distribute to users free software,
- to allow full interoperability towards other social networks.
II. How to respect those freedoms?
First: the communication protocol
The communication protocol must be open.
Second: the software
The software specific to the social network must be under a free software
licence, as its dependencies. The whole software distribution, including
the server part, must be available to users.
Three: the respect of the user data privacy
Each user should use his own servers.
The communication protocol of the social network and software must let the
user be able to decide freely, clearly and efficiently what to do with
each of his data and his account: the user may decide for each
communication who are the recipients, even possibly the general public.
Users must be warned constantly that once they publish their data, those
may be known to the general public, including current or future employers
and the government.
Concerning the data hosted on other servers than the user's own, the delay
to delete a post or to close an account must be quick once the user
requests it. The closure or the deletion must be definitive, no data must
be available to the social network once it is done.
Four: the social network services
Every service available to users through the social network should not
appropriate users data or track them.
What do you think about it? Any suggestions?
Judith Lukoki
[phone]
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion