Re: [lp-ca-on] Microblogs for Software Freedom Day

[Bob Jonkman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I've only skimmed the conversation -- it's getting pretty late to go
in depth. Please forgive me if I'm repeating points already made, or
if I'm contradicting them.

If we don't use the social networks where people already are, how do
we deliver the message?

There has been a lot of speculation on people's behaviour: Will or
won't people see SFD messages on Twitter and subscribe there only?
Will or won't people actually follow through on Twitter messages
crafted to guide people to FLOSS social media even though doing so is
awkward and more work? Will or won't people think less of us by using
proprietary services?

To answer those questions we need evidence.  Let's not jump to any
conclusions until we have such evidence, and let's make some efforts
to gather that evidence.  So far we only have one @SFDToronto account
on a proprietary social media. We can create a second one (maybe
@SoftwareFreedomTO), then give the full proprietary treatment to one,
and only the restricted treatment (as described in previous messages)
t to the other. Let's see which one is more successful. Of course, in
order to determine "successful" we need to figure out what our goal is..

We're all Free Software folks. Even without rigid definitions we all
understand that some social media services are more or less FAIF than
others.  I'd put Twitter as least proprietary (good API, all messages
are publicly visible), Facebook second (good API, but some messages
hidden to non-subscribers) and Google last (lousy or no API, hidden
messages).  Also, we all have different comfort levels with
proprietary solutions. So, those people who prefer to avoid anything
to do with proprietary social networks don't have to participate in
those accounts, whereas those of us with less moral certitude can take
on the dirty work.

Finally, the two accounts I set up are intended for Software Freedom
Day. While this year LibrePlanet Ontario is putting on that event,
other years it could be put on by HackLab.TO or @TorontoCrypto. If so,
I expect to hand over those accounts to that year's organizers.

Still, it's valuable to have these discussions now, just in case
someone gets the bright idea to create a @LibrePlanetON Twitter
account or a https://facebook.com/LibrePlanetOntario page... (which we
may want to do anyway to avoid someone else with ulterior motives
taking over such a page).

- --Bob.


On 03/08/15 10:47 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> Oh, man!  There was a time when I wrote large e-mails about
> anything as well.  I should resurrect this habit if I want to argue
> with you, otherwise it will look like I am not replying properly to
> your arguments!  Please, don't take me wrong :-).
> 
> On Monday, August 03 2015, Blaise Alleyne wrote:
> 
>> On 03/08/15 02:17 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 03 2015, Blaise Alleyne wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I think there are so many differences though [...]
>>>> 
>>>> - there isn't a large open source / free software community
>>>> on Facebook [...]
>>> 
>>> But "reaching a target argument" means, in many cases, reaching
>>> people who never heard about Free Software.  In this case, not
>>> having a large Free Software community on Facebook doesn't
>>> really impose a problem.
>>> 
>> 
>> Sorry, should have been more specific.
>> 
>> Facebook is your everyman's social networking platform, whereas
>> on Twitter there is a larger public presence and active community
>> of tech, open source, or even free software folks. Along this
>> spectrum are people who might have *some* awareness of free
>> software, and therefore some openness to it (ranging from "open
>> source" is cool, or open source activists, or even some people
>> who are conscious and interest in software freedom).
>> 
>> That's ripe "mission" territory -- people who are already open to
>> the message, or have varying levels of familiarity with it, but
>> they aren't yet committed software freedom advocates with GNU
>> Social or Pump.io accounts or whatever. So it's not preaching to
>> the choir, but it's not starting from scratch.
>> 
>> On Facebook, not only would there be far fewer active communities
>> of allies or people who are "ripe for evangelization" or open to
>> the message like that, but it's a lot harder to have those public
>> conversations... because Facebook's system and culture is so much
>> about connecting with people you know, with friends and family,
>> in a more private way.
>> 
>> So Twitter is a real natural candidate for spreading the message
>> of software freedom, whereas Facebook seems like it would take so
>> much work for very little ROI because of the culture and
>> community.
> 
> Alright.  I have absolutely no idea about the type of people that
> use Facebook vs. the type of people that use Twitter, so I cannot
> really argue anymore in this front.  While I do believe it would be
> awesome to promote Free Software to anyone (no matter if this
> person knows what is a computer is), you also have a valid point of
> dealing with a community that would be more open to the concept, at
> least initially.
> 
> Just as a curious fact: in Brazil, back in 2013, I organized a
> Software Freedom Day in the city I lived without using Facebook,
> Twitter, or even GNU Social.  I just spammed some local
> universities, open source groups, and websites.  IIRC, 75 people
> subscribed to the event; unfortunately only 25 showed up (as it
> always happens with gratis events, I'm afraid).
> 
>>>> - Facebook is asking for way more data and setting up private
>>>> walled garden spaces, whereas Twitter's public by default is
>>>> a lot closer to posting to a forum on a website (in terms of
>>>> access at least, not in terms of network effects)
>>> 
>>> The amount of data Twitter asks may be considerably less, but
>>> it is data, and it is a proprietary software running on the
>>> background, and it is personal stuff being posted there
>>> (through Direct Messages), so for me there is no "lesser evil",
>>> although I agree Facebook excels in this aspect.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes and no. You can use Twitter while giving it not much more
>> information that any online forum that requires registration --
>> username, password, email, and any information that's being
>> picked up from requests to the server (like your IP address or
>> browser/client or whatever).
>> 
>> Facebook, with that level of engagement, the account would look
>> fake and nobody would see posts.
> 
> I understand your point.  It may seem like I'm playing devil's
> advocate for Facebook (which I am, kind of, but in a lame way), but
> I completely understand and agree that Twitter, in terms of
> respecting (or not abusing) privacy, is *way* better than Facebook.
> I think in the end my main concern is the proprietary software
> running there, and the fact that we *know* there is proprietary
> software running there.
> 
>>>> [...] We avoid engaging in the Twitter account directly, e.g.
>>>> by following any other accounts, retweeting, uploading
>>>> photos, etc., so it's mostly if not entirely read only.
>>> 
>>> I have used Twitter before, but I confess I have no idea how
>>> social networks work.  For example, I had the impression that
>>> in order to gain more follower one needed to also follow people
>>> (a la "network effect"). If we have an account there but don't
>>> follow anyone, how is it going to effectively help us?  This is
>>> not an ironic question: I really don't know.
>>> 
>> 
>> Ah. So, on Facebook that would be true, but not on Twitter.
>> 
>> Facebook "friend requests" are reciprocal -- user A sends a
>> request to user B, and user B has to accept that request for the
>> connection to be established.
>> 
>> Twitter "follows" are, like GNU Social, one-way. You can follow
>> someone and they don't have to follow you back. (Facebook has an
>> infrequently used Subscribe feature like this... but I think most
>> users aren't even aware of it.)
>> 
>> So Twitter follows work just like GNU Social. We don't have to
>> follow anyone for people to be able to follow us.
>> 
>> A good example of this kind of announce-only account ("read-only"
>> was probably the wrong term) is Techdirt's Twitter account: 
>> https://twitter.com/techdirt
>> 
>> It's really just an alternative to their RSS feed, just gets no
>> articles posted. 40k people following the account, but they're
>> only "following" 13 people. And every post has a link to a
>> Techdirt article.
>> 
>> That's what I'd imagine... using an account like an RSS feed on
>> Twitter for the GNU Social account...
> 
> Cool, thanks for the explanation.  I mean, I knew how Twitter
> worked (I used it for a while, as I said), but I had no idea if the
> fact that we would not be following anyone could mean less "network
> effect" for us. But yeah, I guess "mouth-to-mouth" (or
> "finger-to-finger") promotion works OK in this case.
> 
>>> I am just honestly wondering how effective this Twitter account
>>> would be with all those counter-measurements in place.
>>> 
>> 
>> That's a good question, and I was wondering that too.
>> 
>> There are still hash tags. If we're using a hash tag on GNU
>> Social, that'll get used on Twitter too. I think that's probably
>> the only way people might find the account.
>> 
>> Or it might be worth a few Twitter specific posts targeted at
>> certain communities or hash tags... e.g. if something is trending
>> that warrants our commentary, and we post to GNU Social using the
>> same hash tag that's trending on Twitter, then Twitter users
>> might still be seeing that.
>> 
>> I'm not sure how effective it'd be. It'd certainly be low effort,
>> so it's not like we'd be spending a ton of time or energy for no
>> purpose.
>> 
>> But it'd allow us to syndicate messages to a much more populous
>> network with many ally communities and people who are open to the
>> message, while clearly not embracing or promoting a proprietary
>> service with all the counter-measures in place to avoid
>> scandal/incoherence/compromising our message.
> 
> Right...
> 
> Well, I don't think I have my more arguments, TBH.  It was an
> awesome discussion from my POV; it's always good to talk with you
> :-).  And, in the end, as I said above, I guess my main (and only?)
> point is: Twitter runs proprietary things, and we should make every
> effort to avoid proprietary things.  Hmm no, it's not the only
> point, but it's the main point indeed.  But I know life is made of
> compromises...
> 
> I don't agree with having a Twitter account for the group, but I
> accept this decision if the group wants it (assuming all the
> counter-measures will be implemented by the group, of course).  I
> think you and Bob are in favor of it, so if nobody else opposes we
> can go ahead and keep/create the account.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability

iEYEARECAAYFAlXAWkwACgkQuRKJsNLM5eo/kACgtNjMfPcdd6sHwA7ffOKqJFS3
FD4Anioie+9SZWcFRwzVmta6CbVJTe//
=uOH1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----