From 9712eacc0a83b5caa8eb52573f35c81ba27a9cc5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: P. J. McDermott Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 01:33:03 -0400 Subject: Add "Ethical Social Networking" section to essay. --- 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 @@

On Facebook, Google+, and Ethical Social Networking

- TO COME: An introduction, a section on Google+, and a section on ethical social networking. + TO COME: An introduction and a section on Google+.

The Ethics of Facebook

@@ -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]

+

Ethical Social Networking

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+ +

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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] +

References:

  1. -- cgit v0.9.1