3 ms·

> Facebook is a powerful societal force at this point, and successfully disrupting it with a distributed, non-corporate-controlled service would make a big diff

by kvnn 14y ago

> Facebook is a powerful societal force at this point, and successfully disrupting it with a distributed, non-corporate-controlled service would make a big difference for individual choice. What individual choices would it make a big difference for? > I get your frustration with the constant stream of Blathrs and idiot.lys I'm not frustrated. > But what Diaspora originally set out to do was and is important. I didn't say otherwise.

graue 14y ago
> What individual choices would it make a big difference for? As I said in the linked post: choosing not to use Facebook is currently a high-cost/impractical choice for many people. That means we're almost obliged to accept how they use our data. You called Diaspora's original aims "a trivial problem". That sounds like the opposite of "important" to me.
- kvnn 14y ago
  I called Diaspora's original aim trivial compared to the aims of SpaceX.
  - graue 14y ago
    Well, that seems like apples and oranges to me. Space exploration may (or may not) end up being important to human race's survival super-long-term, but breaking Facebook's monopoly, replacing it with services that offer clear, honest privacy settings, would help a lot of people now. There's no reason we can't have both SpaceX and a Diaspora-like project — important in different ways to different groups of people.
Torgo 14y ago
>What individual choices would it make a big difference for? Control your own data, for ex. when it's deleted it's really gone (except for whom you already shared with,) not just hidden until it's sold to somebody or hacked. Not necessarily being forced into changing user interface ala Timeline, or any of the other dozen times it's happened, just to fit some corporate goal. Sharing pictures or stories or groups with friends without violating the lowest common denominator social norms enforced by a corporate terms of service, and thereby being banned from the service for life. Probably a more free "application" ecosystem whose selection criteria isn't #1 does this make Facebook, Inc. money or cost it money.

by kvnn 14y ago

graue 14y ago

> What individual choices would it make a big difference for? As I said in the linked post: choosing not to use Facebook is currently a high-cost/impractical choice for many people. That means we're almost obliged to accept how they use our data. You called Diaspora's original aims "a trivial problem". That sounds like the opposite of "important" to me.

kvnn 14y ago
I called Diaspora's original aim trivial compared to the aims of SpaceX.
- graue 14y ago
  Well, that seems like apples and oranges to me. Space exploration may (or may not) end up being important to human race's survival super-long-term, but breaking Facebook's monopoly, replacing it with services that offer clear, honest privacy settings, would help a lot of people now. There's no reason we can't have both SpaceX and a Diaspora-like project — important in different ways to different groups of people.

Torgo 14y ago

>What individual choices would it make a big difference for? Control your own data, for ex. when it's deleted it's really gone (except for whom you already shared with,) not just hidden until it's sold to somebody or hacked. Not necessarily being forced into changing user interface ala Timeline, or any of the other dozen times it's happened, just to fit some corporate goal. Sharing pictures or stories or groups with friends without violating the lowest common denominator social norms enforced by a corporate terms of service, and thereby being banned from the service for life. Probably a more free "application" ecosystem whose selection criteria isn't #1 does this make Facebook, Inc. money or cost it money.