I propose to add that the software must be secure. Any flaw should be fixed as soon as possible.
On 27 August 2011 14:15, judith@movingyouth.eu wrote:
This is the reason why I tried to write down the concept of ethical social network. I. The ethical social network II. How to respect those freedoms?
This is important and necessary, but not sufficient. One of the big problems with social network software is that it must not only be free
- it has to actually offer reasonable security to the nontechnical.
Freedom is insufficient - it actually has to be technically good, because it'll be used by nontechies out on the hostile Internet.
This is something I'm seeing a lot. People disgruntled with Facebook, and newly disgruntled with Google+, are advocating Diaspora. But Diaspora is horribly shoddy software deep in its architecture:
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/09/22/security-lessons-learned-from-the-diaspo...
with no visible security architecture (these are all the same post, with three discussions):
http://oda.dreamwidth.org/2828.html https://plus.google.com/u/0/102376799902430080799/posts/GHg5nZRHbUA https://joindiaspora.com/posts/404422
I would go so far as to say that advocating it to nontechnical users - the typical user disgruntled with Facebook or Google - is presently the *wrong* thing to do, because they simply don't know enough to protect themselves from its problems, and would be exchanging a single threatening agent (the large company attempting to monetise their click trail) for an unlimited number of threatening agents (every griefer on the Internet).
- d.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Judith Lukoki +33 (0)6 15 94 50 23 http://www.movingyouth.eu