On 27 August 2011 14:15, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
