diff options
| -rwxr-xr-x | essays/social-networking.html | 156 |
1 files changed, 155 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/essays/social-networking.html b/essays/social-networking.html index c89f766..eccc63f 100755 --- a/essays/social-networking.html +++ b/essays/social-networking.html @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ <!--#include virtual="../includes/header.html" --> <h2>On Facebook, Google+, and Ethical Social Networking</h2> <p> - TO COME: An introduction, a section on Google+, and a section on ethical social networking. + TO COME: An introduction and a section on Google+. </p> <h3>The Ethics of Facebook</h3> <p> @@ -88,6 +88,160 @@ the Free Software Foundation to write about Facebook's poor track record with privacy and create rather amusing "Dislike" and "not f'd" buttons. [12] </p> +<h3>Ethical Social Networking</h3> +<p> + TODO: Move characteristic four into a note somewhere, as it is rare for a + service provider to attempt to claim copyright on user-submitted works. + Also, refer to the Franklin Street Statement. +</p> +<p> + But social networking is not inherently evil. You can connect with old + friends and discover new ones without sacrificing privacy, security, + autonomy, and freedom. You just have to be careful about the platforms + you use. I've identified four basic characteristics that a social + networking platform must have for it to be an ethical one that doesn't + abuse its users. The first two characteristics are universal; all + viable platforms, whether running on your own computer or hosted by a + service provider, must have these. The last two apply only if you + choose to use a platform that is run by someone else as a service. +</p> +<ul> + <li> + Software freedom. You must be free to use the software that powers + the social networking platform on your own computer without + restrictions. You must be free to inspect the software and modify + it. You must be free to share the software with others, with or + without modifications. With these freedoms, you have full control + over your social networking and you can decide who has access to + which personal information. Without these freedoms, only the + developer can decide what the software does, and you may not even + be allowed to know what it does to you. + </li> + <li> + Federation. You must be able to run the software on your own + computer and still be able to communicate with other people using + other copies of the software. If the software has protocols for + communication between users across multiple installations, then the + software is federated. For example, e-mail is federated; you can + run your own mail server and still send mail to other people who + use other servers. This is because all standards-compliant mail + servers speak the same protocol. + </li> + <li> + Privacy. If you choose to use a social networking service run by + someone else, the service must offer a clear and agreeable privacy + policy to which the service provider must strictly adhere. The + service provider must not be allowed to give your personal + information to third parties without your consent (unless required + by law) or use your information in ways that threaten your privacy + and autonomy. + </li> + <li> + No claims of copyright. The service provider must agree that your + personal information is yours, not theirs. There must not be any + claims of copyright on the information you provide. The provider + may, however, require you to license such information to them + and/or to others for it to be published on the service; in this + case, you should make sure you agree with the license terms before + using the service. + </li> +</ul> +<p> + Let's look at some social networking platforms and see how they adhere + to these criteria. We'll start with Facebook. Facebook fails criterion + one; you cannot run, inspect, modify, or share the software that powers + Facebook. This means it also fails criterion two; it is inherently not + federated because you cannot run it on your own computer. Since + Facebook is not federated and you're stuck with the hosted service, + criteria three and four apply. Facebook has a terrible track record + with privacy and therefore fails criterion three. According to their + terms of service, you retain copyright on your information and give + Facebook "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, + worldwide license to use" your information. [13] This is standard + licensing language that allows Facebook to publish information you + submit, and with these terms Facebook seems to pass criterion four. + (I've heard that Facebook claims or used to claim copyright on your + information, but seeing these terms of service I'll give Facebook the + benefit of the doubt here.) Facebook fails three out of the four + criteria, and we can conclude that Facebook is an unethical social + networking platform. +</p> +<p> + Next we'll evaluate Twitter. Again, it fails criterion one since you + cannot run, inspect, modify, or share the software. And again it fails + criterion two since you cannot run the software on your own computer. + Twitter has a clear privacy policy that describes what information is + made public, what information you may optionally provide, what + information is collected in logs, and what information is to be kept + private except under certain circumstances. [14] I don't know of any + occasion on which Twitter has failed to adhere to this policy, so if you + agree with this policy then Twitter passes criterion three. Twitter's + terms of service explicitly leave you with the rights to your + information, but you must agree to grant Twitter "a worldwide, + non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to + use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display + and distribute [your information] in any and all media or distribution + methods (now known or later developed)". [15] Again this is standard + licensing language that allows Twitter to publish the information you + post, and I conclude that with these terms Twitter passes the fourth + criterion. In summary, Twitter passes two out of the four criteria; + it's not completely ethical since it leaves you without important + freedoms and at the mercy of a single centralized provider, but it seems + it's not as bad as Facebook is in terms of privacy. +</p> +<p> + Next up is Identi.ca. Identi.ca is an instance of StatusNet, a free + software microblogging platform that is similar in function to Twitter. + StatusNet is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License, + which requires that all users, including those who use the software over + a network, have all of the necessary freedoms with the software. With + this license, StatusNet, and therefore Identi.ca, pass criterion one + beautifully. StatusNet implements the OStatus protocol, which allows + users of other installations of StatusNet (or even other software such + as GNU Social) to communicate seamlessly. With this, StatusNet and GNU + Social (and instances of the software such as Identi.ca) are federated + and pass criterion two. If you choose to use Identi.ca instead of + running StatusNet or GNU Social on your own computer, then criteria + three and four apply. Identi.ca has a very clear privacy policy that + describes what information is made public, what information remains + private, and how information may be used by Identi.ca, by users, and by + other instances of StatusNet and GNU Social. [16] With this, Identi.ca + passes criterion three. Identi.ca's terms of service make no claims to + copyright on your information. The terms require that you grant + Identi.ca "a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to + reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose + of displaying, distributing and promoting your notice stream". They + also require that you "grant all readers the right to use, re-use, + modify and/or re-distribute the Content under the terms of the Creative + Commons Attribution 3.0 [Public License]". [17] This license allows + readers to share your notices, to modify your notices, and to + incorporate your notices in larger works, as long as they give you + credit for your words and do not misrepresent you. These are agreeable + terms that leave you in control of your information and allow the world + to share and build upon your work, so we can conclude that Identi.ca + passes criterion four. Identi.ca, which runs the free social networking + platform StatusNet, passes all four criteria. It is an ethical platform + and service that protects your privacy, autonomy, and freedom. Because + of this, I myself use Identi.ca. [18] Since the software is free, before + registering I checked the source code to make sure that my password + would be stored securely. And since the software is federated, I + reserve the right, especially if Identi.ca in the future ever fails + criteria three and four or ceases to exist, to move to my own + self-hosted instance of the software without losing contact with other + users. +</p> +<p> + These three cases are just examples of popular platforms. There are of + course many others. Google recently opened up their new platform, + Google+, which so far is neither free nor federated. The Diaspora + project began in response to outrage over privacy on Facebook; Diaspora + itself is free and federated, and there are hosted Diaspora services + with decent privacy policies. Finally, I don't claim that these + criteria are perfect; they are merely the result of observations I've + made. A similar set of criteria for "freedom in the 'cloud'" has + recently been offered by Georg Greve, founder of the Free Software + Foundation Europe. [19] +</p> <h3>References:</h3> <ol> <li> |