I was describing the "Silicon Valley system," not necessarily endorsing it.
Here is Wikipedia's description of Diaspora's social networking site, which started out as a Silicon Valley startup that ultimately became a non-profit foundation: Diaspora is a nonprofit, user-owned, distributed social network that is > based upon the free Diaspora software. Diaspora consists of a group of > independently owned nodes (called pods) which interoperate to form the > network. As of March 2014, there are more than 1 million Diaspora > accounts.[2] > The social network is not owned by any one person or entity, keeping it > from being subject to corporate take-overs or advertising. In September > 2011 the developers stated, "...our distributed design means no big > corporation will ever control Diaspora. Diaspora* will never sell your > social life to advertisers, and you won’t have to conform to someone’s > arbitrary rules or look over your shoulder before you speak."[3] > Diaspora software is licensed with GNU-AGPL-3.0.[4] Diaspora software > development is managed by the Diaspora Foundation, which is part of the > Free Software Support Network (FSSN). The FSSN is in turn run by Eben > Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center. The FSSN acts as an umbrella > organization to Diaspora development and manages Diaspora's branding, > finances and legal assets.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network) On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Andrés Pacheco <alps6...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is "Diaspora?" My concept of diaspora is people fleeing their > homelands to stay out of harm's way... > > And, btw, I refuse to believe that the only way to go for any "startup" is > to sell out to venture capitalists and McMarketeers. > > The issue here is moral, not economic. So think of The Phantom of the > Opera! > > Apparently, "High-Tech" has become synonymous with "The Golden Rush!" > > But this list is called "LiberationTech," and there's hardly anything > "liberating" with cooking up get rich quick schemes! > > Regards | Saludos, > > Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes > <a...@acm.org> > > On Feb 10, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Yosem Companys <compa...@stanford.edu> > wrote: > > Network effects are powerful. And to create network effects, except in the > rare case of organic viral growth, requires a lot of marketing and > advertising. And marketing and advertising requires raising a lot of money. > And raising a lot of money requires angel investors, venture capital > investors, and so on. And then you are back at the Silicon Valley model of > collecting people's information and selling or trading it like a commodity. > > But I have a question: What's a reasonable metric for success in terms of > the number of people using a decentralized system? My understanding is that > Diaspora remains decentralized and has a million or more users. Is that > good enough? Or do we have to be like email -- absolutely ubiquitous? > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:00 AM, F LM <flucom...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Because of the intangible nature of the internet, people don't treat the >> privacy of their communications with the same bar they would treat (we >> assume) paper correspondence. >> >> Having said that, it's fundamental to understand that people won't leave >> Facebook, Gmail or Windows, simply because, beyond theoretical manifestos >> about abstract concepts such as 'privacy', they don't have any reason to do >> so. >> >> In fact, it's quite the opposite — people won't make the move from any of >> the aforementioned companies for the simple reason that everything will be >> more difficult. And let's cut the BS here — easy-to-use and functionality >> on the "alternatives" are not the best. >> >> That's why I think is critical that the hacker community start focusing >> more on UX. Until my mother can see that Linux is as nice, easy-to-use and >> practical as Windows, only then she will start making the change (and even >> that won't guarantee that she leaves Windows, but is a basic a mandatory >> step). The same can be said about IM, social media, email and practically >> everything. >> >> FL >> >> > On 08-02-2017, at 10:06, Alberto Cammozzo <ac+li...@zeromx.net> wrote: >> > >> > Richard, you are right: maintaining email servers requires some skill >> > and has a cost. >> > Gmail does this reliably and is attractive for most non-technical users. >> > >> > But now imagine this: >> > Your favourite snail-mail service offers your university paper letters >> > delivery, but at these conditions: >> > 1) being authorized to open the envelope you send >> > 2) reading the letter looking for keywords >> > 3) attaching targeted advertising to your letter, according to keywords >> > 4) build and keep a profile of you and your correspondents network >> > 5) eventually deliver the letter along with advertising >> > 6) deliver targeted advertising in envelopes directed to you >> > Would your university accept, even in front of major savings? I don't >> > think so. >> > Despite being free, attractive and convenient this would be illegal in >> > most countries (in Italy, where I live, secrecy of correspondence is >> > even a constitutional provision). >> > But, inexplicably, this is pretty much what we accept without hesitation >> > with Gmail and most free messaging services. >> > And still, secrecy of paper correspondence is socially required and >> > legally protected. >> > >> > Building a decentralized, reliable, secure, private, open and cheap (if >> > not free) infrastructure for delivering and preserving emails at least >> > as well as Gmail does is something we should have. >> > By infrastructure I mean something like railways, telephone, power >> > lines, roads, bridges, Internet connectivity: in certain cases they >> > should or may be privately held, but with a major public commitment. >> > Their main goal is providing a public interest service, build an >> > enabling environment for social and economic life, not only being a >> > business opportunity. >> > And of course I'm not saying we should have national Gmails! >> > I think something more similar to dn42.net and zeroNet.io, but at least >> > as attractive and usable as Google services. >> > See also the paper by Aymeric Vitte in this thread. >> > >> > Bests, >> > >> > Alberto >> > >> > >> > >> >> On 07/02/2017 16:10, Richard Brooks wrote: >> >> On the other hand, why are they using gmail? >> >> >> >> Our university outsourced email to Google. They >> >> software up to date, handle the security, provide >> >> convenient cloud access (I personally dislike >> >> their GUIs), etc. For our university, this decision >> >> probably did make our email traffic more secure >> >> as well. >> >> >> >> I am not wild about the decision our university >> >> made, but for most users using Gmail is probably >> >> the more reasonable and secure choice. Not the >> >> choice that I would make for myself. Being spied >> >> on bothers me. >> >> >> >> But, if you want to have the broad base of users >> >> move elsewhere, you need to address the clear >> >> advantages that Gmail provides. >> >> >> >> Political, social, and economics arguments will not >> >> convince most people. >> >> >> >>> On 02/07/2017 07:06 AM, Andrés Pacheco wrote: >> >>> Signore Camozzo hit the nail on the head, twice. So then I have to >> draw the proper conclusion... >> >>> >> >>> 1. We need concerted action to set non-proprietary communication >> standards at the application level, much like the TCP-IP Protocols did for >> the lower layer(s) >> >>> >> >>> 2. This action HAS to be POLITICAL, since it's not just a matter of >> devising technical standards, but to have them ADOPTED by the majority. We >> need the 75% of his email correspondents to not use proprietary email >> platforms (and so forth and so on, and including me and this email itself!) >> >>> >> >>> Ergo, it is at best naive trying to separate "Technology" from >> "Politics:" all Technology is Political, and ignoring this only rubber >> stamps the technology of the proprietary powers that be. >> >>> >> >>> Not by chance it's Technology companies at the top of the "most >> valuable company of the world" food chain: Google and Apple. If that's not >> a political statement, then what is? Where is "the swamp?" >> >>> >> >>> Regards | Saludos, >> >>> >> >>> Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes >> >>> <a...@acm.org> >> >>> >> >>>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Alberto Cammozzo <ac+li...@zeromx.net> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> So far so good, but what is it all for? ~75% of my email >> correspondents >> >>>> use Gmail ... >> >>>> You cant decentralize alone... >> >>>> We need to fix this quickly or the information revolution will be >> lost >> >>>> and archived as an annex of the industrial revolution. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > - >> > TagMeNot >> > http://tagMeNot.info >> > @dontTag >> > >> > -- >> > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. >> Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. >> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at >> compa...@stanford.edu. >> -- >> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations >> of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/m >> ailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change >> password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu. > > > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations > of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/ > mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change > password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu. > > > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations > of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/ > mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change > password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu. >
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
