On 11-06-28 at 02:55pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 07:39:43PM +0800, Sandy Harris wrote: > > Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I very much see the relevancy in separation of a "harmless > > > FreedomBox" and an "activism FreedomBox". > > > I do not. If the Box defeats censorship and tracking, that in itself > > is revolutionary. > > +1
+1 I fail to see a disagreement there. > > > My point is that one point (out of several!) in the vision of > > > FreedomBox is that the world becomes a better place even if not > > > directly addressing then needs of activists ... > > > > > > I want to address the problem of central logging of the activities > > > of the masses _separately_ from the more complex problem of > > > activists needing secrecy, anonymity and other powerful features. > > > Because the first is easier and quicker solved than the second. > > > And because the first helps solve the second! > > > > Exactly. > > Well, I guess it depends on what "central logging of the activities of > the masses" means. First, there is no real "central" logging, no > unique big brother that the freedombox might want to defeat, but a lot > of different (from size to content) logging databases out there, > maintained by a lot of different actors. When logs are controlled by a single entity, for 1000 people posting microblogging entries and 1000 other people reading the posts and tagging some authors as interesting to "follow", I consider the logging "central". - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
