4 ms·
Can you elaborate on a few of your claims here? First, you seem to imply that a privately-owned public space is a bad thing. What alternatives do you envision?
by hammerzeit 13y ago
Can you elaborate on a few of your claims here?
First, you seem to imply that a privately-owned public space is a bad thing. What alternatives do you envision? Wouldn't a space regulated and controlled by governmental entities or NGOs be just as liable to abuse?
Second, when you speak about "Facebook," what do you mean? Do you mean that the people who work there don't care about helping people connecting there? That Mark Zuckerberg personally doesn't care? Or that the corporate entity of Facebook has some sort of conscious will of its own separate from the will of its employees?
Third, you seem to imply there's an obvious reason why Facebook blocked TOR that furthers their business interests. Can you elaborate on what that is?
- extra88 13y agoThe alternative is a federated model where you can one of many platform providers (or set up your own) and they can all "talk" to each other to create a "space" which is owned by no single entity. An open standard, defined by many participants, creates the "space." This is the way email works. It's the way XMPP works for messaging (and which has been stabbed in the back by Google by dropping their support of it in crucial ways). The Diaspora Project has the same concept for social networking in a Facebook-ish way. I didn't RTFA but use of Tor can impair Facebook's tracking of people, thus making the data about people less valuable commodities to sell to their advertisers. Using Tor may also increase Facebook's network usage a bit by making less use of cached data, locally and remotely.