summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/essays/social-networking.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'essays/social-networking.html')
-rwxr-xr-xessays/social-networking.html156
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>