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>