SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Richard Stallman writes in the Guardian:
Journalists have been asking me whether the revulsion against the abuse of Facebook data could be a turning point for the campaign to recover privacy. That could happen, if the public makes its campaign broader and deeper.
Broader, meaning extending to all surveillance systems, not just Facebook. Deeper, meaning to advance from regulating the use of data to regulating the accumulation of data. Because surveillance is so pervasive, restoring privacy is necessarily a big change, and requires powerful measures.
The surveillance imposed on us today far exceeds that of the Soviet Union. For freedom and democracy's sake, we need to eliminate most of it. There are so many ways to use data to hurt people that the only safe database is the one that was never collected. Thus, instead of the EU's approach of mainly regulating how personal data may be used (in its General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR), I propose a law to stop systems from collecting personal data.
The robust way to do that, the way that can't be set aside at the whim of a government, is to require systems to be built so as not to collect data about a person. The basic principle is that a system must be designed not to collect certain data, if its basic function can be carried out without that data.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Pav on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:30AM (7 children)
Federated services already exist as replacements for Facebook (eg. Diaspora), Twitter (eg. Mastodon) etc... All that is really needed is political will. If/when there's political will, then ISPs can can charge extra for Facebook-equivalent, Twitter-equivalent etc... and without destroying net neutrality. Everybody wins! There could even be RFCs to nail down some robust standards so servers running different solutions can talk to eachother.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 05 2018, @08:04AM (5 children)
How does this work? Paying extra for exactly what (without destroying net neutrality)?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday April 05 2018, @12:27PM (4 children)
For ISP hosted services... people already get email. Just bundle social media equivalents, either in the base fee, or as extras. It gives the ISPs some extras to sell without the net neutrality BS.
(Score: 2) by letssee on Thursday April 05 2018, @12:41PM (2 children)
Methinks you need to read up on what net neutrality means. If an isp needs to differentiate traffic to facebook from other traffic it's no longer neutral.
Don't get me wrong, please tax Facebook out of existence. But the ISP's are exactly the wrong party to handle that.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday April 05 2018, @12:58PM
Not Facebook... We were talking about a federated Facebook equivalent (like Diaspora etc...).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by chromas on Thursday April 05 2018, @05:51PM
Back in þe olden times, some ISPs used to run web servers for customers to put up their own sites. But also, they usually host customer email and maybe usenet servers. He probably meant something like that.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @05:38AM
Um, yeah; we called it 'usenet'.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Thursday April 05 2018, @09:59AM
sudo mod me up