On 3/18/11 6:01 PM, Yannick wrote:
All this is just hurting my feelings; and with much more deep
consequences defeating the whole project. Do you guys remember it is
about freedom? It is not just another marketing buzz around "freedom",
or "green", or [feel with your own concern] you can use to cover another
business operation.
Personally, I don't have a business operation, and my day job is as a
web developer at the Mozilla Corporation. I truly want to see freedom
increased for everyone.
Do you remember Elben's talks? Have you only listen him?
I sure did listen to him. It's the whole reason I joined the list.
I'm getting tired of arguing about technical issues after reading this
thread; the goal is quite clear: fine grained control of datas and
communication, all in the hand of the user. It is not about the ease of
use of services which can and do change their policies without one
approval.
This is what I want to see, too.
To put it clearly: the freedombox should take facebook and twitter down.
+1
And no, it wont do it because it provide more/better features, it will
do it because it is a tool which design goal is to give people the
*respect* it deserves.
This is where I disagree. If we want to take down Facebook and Twitter,
we need to understand why they're successful and address that.
The reason services like Facebook and Twitter have won so many users is
because many people can use them and they don't generally cost money to
use. And, because all their friends are there - which is a network
effect promoted by the ease-of-use and lack of a monetary fee.
The FreedomBox could have the most solid technical foundations - but if
it will gain few converts if it doesn't have an answer to the concerns
of usability, cost, and network effects.
For cost, well, we're talking about a free OS on relatively cheap plug
computer that can get cheaper.
For usability, I think we'll get there if it's a priority.
For network effects, that's what I mean when I say that a FreedomBox
should talk to things like Twitter and Facebook. If you give me a box
that can talk to almost no one, I'll never use it. Give me a box that
lets me talk to my friends on existing services, yet gain more control
over my life online, and I'll start using it every day.
Consider it support for legacy networks while people are eased onto
better paths. It can be a bridge - and someday, the bridge can be
burned. But, if there is no bridge at all, I don't think many people
will make the required leap.
But, I could be wrong, and maybe concerns of privacy and
self-determination will override usability / cost / network effects,
once a respectable alternative is available. I'm rather pessimistic
about that, though.
--
[email protected]
http://decafbad.com
{web,mad,computer} scientist
_______________________________________________
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
