Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

[Paul Boddie]

On Monday 26. March 2018 23.30.31 Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> You wrote "telling people that they are bad", but I only said the habits
> are bad, not the people.
> 
> If I say a habit is bad, I am not saying the person is bad.  Everybody
> has some bad habits but that doesn't mean everybody is bad.

Well, I guess that a habit is something that people are compelled to do, and 
that even if it is bad for them, they are not intentionally pursuing it out of 
malice either towards themselves or towards others. Still, a reminder that 
they are doing something that is bad for them or others can make them feel 
that they are bad, depending on how it is phrased.

Anyway, I want to concentrate on constructive measures that go beyond advocacy 
or behavioural engineering, and I believe you have also invested time and 
effort in those, too.

> Even dumb phones are surprisingly good at monitoring you.  The phone
> number alone is a powerful mechanism for joining the dots.  SMS
> "authentication" is not about security at all, it is about linking you
> to all your other online accounts, credit records, online job searches,
> etc.

I read all sorts of things about how such data is used. From what I have heard 
about the devices themselves, although there are limited options for 
engineering legally-compliant devices, initiatives like Neo900 which seek to 
isolate the different aspects of such devices are well-advised workarounds.

Paul
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

[Daniel Pocock]

On 26/03/18 22:40, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On Monday 26. March 2018 20.16.03 Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>> That is not a good summary of who the plugin is for or how it will help
>> them
> 
> Sorry to misrepresent it, but it has previously been framed as "breaking bad 
> habits", which is a little different from helping people comply with 
> organisational policy.
> 

You wrote "telling people that they are bad", but I only said the habits
are bad, not the people.

If I say a habit is bad, I am not saying the person is bad.  Everybody
has some bad habits but that doesn't mean everybody is bad.


> [...]
> 
>> We also need to go beyond technology: remind people that they don't need
>> any of these things (whether proprietary or free) to live their lives.
>> The human race evolved for millions of years without smartphone apps.
> 
> True enough. I don't even have a smartphone. And when I inevitably get one, I 
> imagine that I will only use it beyond traditional phone activities for 
> things 
> like navigation: something which migrated into the phone device profile as 
> such devices became able to successfully integrate such functions.
> 

Even dumb phones are surprisingly good at monitoring you.  The phone
number alone is a powerful mechanism for joining the dots.  SMS
"authentication" is not about security at all, it is about linking you
to all your other online accounts, credit records, online job searches, etc.

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

[Paul Boddie]

On Monday 26. March 2018 20.16.03 Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> That is not a good summary of who the plugin is for or how it will help
> them

Sorry to misrepresent it, but it has previously been framed as "breaking bad 
habits", which is a little different from helping people comply with 
organisational policy.

[...]

> We also need to go beyond technology: remind people that they don't need
> any of these things (whether proprietary or free) to live their lives.
> The human race evolved for millions of years without smartphone apps.

True enough. I don't even have a smartphone. And when I inevitably get one, I 
imagine that I will only use it beyond traditional phone activities for things 
like navigation: something which migrated into the phone device profile as 
such devices became able to successfully integrate such functions.

> When I tell people I don't have any social media accounts and I'm happy
> about it, they feel more enthusiastic too.  But if I tell them that I
> don't have facebook and then they were to see me on Twitter then the
> message would be undermined.

Here, I agree. Which is why the "delete Facebook" bandwagon employing a 
hashtag seems arbitrary if not hypocritical. I also wonder why Mozilla were 
even advertising on Facebook, but that is not relevant to this particular 
thread of discussion.

Paul
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

[bruno]

"There is no social network, just advertising and privacy-violating default 
settings"
This would be against the "we're not in a war"-attitude and I would not 
recommend it, but right now it sounds so true...

Il 26 marzo 2018 14:36:19 CEST, Paul Boddie  ha scritto:
>[…]
>
>A campaign, in the FSFE sense, can be many things.   […] 
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

[Daniel Pocock]

On 25/03/18 18:08, Paul Boddie wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> There has been a lot said recently about Facebook, Google, and other entities 
> that facilitate online communication through services that have hidden 
> impacts 
> on people's freedoms. But as I noted before, it is more constructive to focus 
> on how we in the Free Software community can help others communicate using 
> more respectful tools and services.
> 
> This isn't just in the context of recent discussions about Mozilla and 
> Facebook: I also mentioned it when Daniel suggested a plugin to remind people 
> about how their use of proprietary, exploitative services might be impacting 
> their freedom and those of others. While I understand what the motives are 
> for 
> doing something like this, telling people that they are bad only really 
> appeals to people who like punishing themselves or who admit to weakness and 
> want someone else to apply the discipline.
> 

That is not a good summary of who the plugin is for or how it will help them

- who it is for: anybody, whether they know about free software or not.
The user would be able to specify their level of understanding and the
plugin behavior would be optimized for them.  E.g. if the user says "I
work in a free software company and I have to avoid proprietary services
to comply with policy", the plugin might be quite strict but if they say
"I want to gradually take back control" it will behave more softly.

- how it will help: it will NOT be telling people they are "bad".  Even
people with the best intentions struggle to overcome bad habits.  There
is significant research in neuroscience to show why that is hard, it is
not just a choice or lazyness.  When a young driver learns the habits of
correct driving, they almost always start with a driving instructor.
Imagine the chaos on the roads if nobody ever had a driving instructor:
that is what exists online today.  The plugin can try and take a role
like the driving instructor, giving positive help.


> Now, it is often the case that any negative message is accompanied by a 
> positive one. One might suggest a range of alternatives that are better for 
> people. So, people have already suggested that the FSFE and the community in 
> general promote things like Diaspora, GNU Social, Mastodon, or whatever. But 
> I 
> don't think this goes far enough.
> 

We also need to go beyond technology: remind people that they don't need
any of these things (whether proprietary or free) to live their lives.
The human race evolved for millions of years without smartphone apps.

When I tell people I don't have any social media accounts and I'm happy
about it, they feel more enthusiastic too.  But if I tell them that I
don't have facebook and then they were to see me on Twitter then the
message would be undermined.

Regards,

Daniel

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

[Paul Boddie]

On Monday 26. March 2018 11.12.15 br...@tracciabi.li wrote:
> Paul Boddie  ha scritto:
> > 
> > With such considerations in mind, does anyone else think that the topic
> > of genuinely free communication might be worthy of a comprehensive
> > campaign? One that would focus on solutions and not problems.
> 
> I'm too ignorant to seriously evaluate whether a campaign would be
> worth, so I'm not going to push my point too much. "Free
> communication" looks to me more like a personal topic, while "entities
> needlessly advertising proprietary [pdf] software" looks to me more
> like an institutional topic, worth of a public campaign.

A campaign, in the FSFE sense, can be many things. Document Freedom Day, PDF 
Readers, Public Money Public Code are rather institutional, but things like I 
♥ Free Software and Free Your Android are more personal. Other campaigns could 
be interpreted as addressing both audiences.

Meanwhile, "free communication" does affect institutions as well. Indeed, it 
is the behaviour of institutions that often diminishes the freedoms of 
individuals, as I was reminded recently when having to pursue an employment 
application with the potential employer wanting me to use the full selection 
of proprietary Microsoft products (which had nothing to do with the actual 
job, of course) to interact with them.

> My view is that most people won't change their mind about personal
> communications because of a campaign. What might convince them is a talk
> from someone they trust AND a viable solution.

Here, I agree, which is why I noted...

"In other words, promotion and advocacy are not enough. Support has to be 
given for people to actually develop and improve the solutions we suggest."

> Something which is more or less working for me is helping people install F-
> Droid, Conversations and Riot. The recurring issues, after helping them
> register and connect with me, are android battery saving killing the app and
> notifications not working on riot-ios.

So I think that because you have experience with the technological situation 
you're not "too ignorant" to determine whether a campaign in the broader sense 
is worthwhile. You have identified deficiencies in a persistent Free Software 
"story" that just happens to have elevated relevance at this current moment.

> I've been trying Movim, Dandelion and Tusky for a week, and I'd only
> recommend Tusky, unless one is willing to deal with a platform in
> developement.

Right. So we would want to identify solutions that could actually work for 
people and then determine what kind of support the developers might need to 
deliver something that fulfils all our objectives.

Paul
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

[bruno]

Paul Boddie  ha scritto:


[...]

With such considerations in mind, does anyone else think that the topic of
genuinely free communication might be worthy of a comprehensive campaign? One
that would focus on solutions and not problems.


I'm too ignorant to seriously evaluate whether a campaign would be  
worth, so I'm not going to push my point too much. "Free  
communication" looks to me more like a personal topic, while "entities  
needlessly advertising proprietary [pdf] software" looks to me more  
like an institutional topic, worth of a public campaign. My view is  
that most people won't change their mind about personal communications  
because of a campaign. What might convince them is a talk from someone  
they trust AND a viable solution. Something which is more or less  
working for me is helping people install F-Droid, Conversations and  
Riot. The recurring issues, after helping them register and connect  
with me, are android battery saving killing the app and notifications  
not working on riot-ios.
I've been trying Movim, Dandelion and Tusky for a week, and I'd only  
recommend Tusky, unless one is willing to deal with a platform in  
developement.

/b
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

[Andreas Nilsson]

Hi.

I think this is an important topic. I do not know much about what you
call "social media", I would prefer to have a personal site where I
post the data I want the public to see. I use Facebook almost solely
for instant messaging with close friends, so speaking of IM what tools
are there for this kind of communication? I didn't see you bring
anything up about that.

There is also conference communication and phones, also important topic
to bring up I think.

I for example do not have a mobile phone, but I do have an IP based
phone and I am not particularly fond of calling without the option to
encrypt the dialog.

Ani

On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 18:08 +0200, Paul Boddie wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> There has been a lot said recently about Facebook, Google, and other
> entities 
> that facilitate online communication through services that have
> hidden impacts 
> on people's freedoms. But as I noted before, it is more constructive
> to focus 
> on how we in the Free Software community can help others communicate
> using 
> more respectful tools and services.
> 
> This isn't just in the context of recent discussions about Mozilla
> and 
> Facebook: I also mentioned it when Daniel suggested a plugin to
> remind people 
> about how their use of proprietary, exploitative services might be
> impacting 
> their freedom and those of others. While I understand what the
> motives are for 
> doing something like this, telling people that they are bad only
> really 
> appeals to people who like punishing themselves or who admit to
> weakness and 
> want someone else to apply the discipline.
> 
> Now, it is often the case that any negative message is accompanied by
> a 
> positive one. One might suggest a range of alternatives that are
> better for 
> people. So, people have already suggested that the FSFE and the
> community in 
> general promote things like Diaspora, GNU Social, Mastodon, or
> whatever. But I 
> don't think this goes far enough.
> 
> In the context of the FSFE, one may consider the campaigns that are 
> occasionally run by the organisation. An interesting example is the
> PDF 
> Readers campaign which attempted to promote Free Software PDF reader 
> applications and to demand that public organisations advertising the 
> proprietary Adobe Reader stop doing so.
> 
> Much of the focus of the PDF Readers campaign appeared to be on
> getting those 
> organisations to stop giving Adobe's software free advertising. I
> support such 
> efforts and even attempted to participate in them. But the other side
> of the 
> campaign involved promoting the Free Software alternatives, and it
> was in this 
> area where I think much more should have been done.
> 
> Anyone going to the pdfreaders.org site will see a list of
> applications, and 
> the diversity of Free Software means that there is plenty of choice,
> but a 
> consequence of this is that it would have been awkward for people to
> take the 
> intended positive action when confronted with such information.
> Admittedly, it 
> is a complicated problem to solve: how can such a campaign suggest a 
> relatively simple, concrete action that helps the user to do the
> right thing?
> 
> But it goes beyond whether people can get started with the right
> solutions. 
> Many of us will have been faced with documents that need certain
> features in 
> the application we are using. Things like forms in PDF documents,
> for 
> instance. It is likely that some of the suggested solutions do not
> support 
> forms, and others may have problems with whatever Adobe's authoring
> tools 
> emit. Standards-compliance is difficult, especially when proprietary
> software 
> companies often indulge in a bit of "front-running" to lock people
> into their 
> own products.
> 
> In other words, promotion and advocacy are not enough. Support has to
> be given 
> for people to actually develop and improve the solutions we suggest.
> And the 
> combination of solutions suggested for meeting people's needs must be
> coherent 
> and provide an obvious path for them to follow. Where there are
> deficiencies 
> or gaps in those solutions, support has to be given to make the
> campaign 
> message credible rather than "here's some cool stuff, you're on your
> own now".
> 
> Another relevant example involves things like the use of encryption 
> technologies for personal communications. How many times have we been
> told 
> that encryption is important only to be confronted with lengthy
> "instructive" 
> texts full of caveats and the hedging of positions on things like
> key 
> management? That maybe the way to adopt such things is to become an
> expert 
> yourself and, by the way, good luck! People just get put off from
> doing 
> anything at all because at any moment someone might berate them for
> "doing it 
> all wrong".
> 
> With such considerations in mind, does anyone else think that the
> topic of 
> genuinely free communication might be worthy of a comprehensive
> campaign? One 
> that would