I propose to add that the software must be secure. Any flaw should be fixed as soon as possible.
> 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 > Judith Lukoki +33 (0)6 15 94 50 23 http://www.movingyouth.eu _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
