Re: [Social-discuss] What I think GNU Social's structure should be

[Carlo von Loesch]

| 2010/3/28 Jason Self <address@hidden>
| > No software license can protect you from the effects of SaaS:
| > http://aws.bluehome.net/saas.html

Melvin Carvalho typeth:
| OK, I get that.  Basically, try and do things P2P, but if you have to use a
| central server, make it someone you trust.  Though the scope of what RMS
| describes as SaaS seems that it would not cover things like GNU Social, but
| rather, things like Word Processing, Spreadsheets etc. which seem to be out
| or scope here anyway.

Strongly disagree on this one. Social networking is an extremely
privacy intense thing - people just don't realise as yet what it means
when every stupid little tweet they made is still available when they
will be old and grey. Plenty of embarrassment coming up. And there is
a need for people to be able to share more intimate things. To be able
to discuss your latest heartache with your three best friends.
People will not switch to another medium for that. GNU Social must be
safe enough for them to be able to have such a conversation, yet it
will never leave their computers, never exist unencrypted, ideally
be encrypted in an off-the-record way.

If this technology is to leave a mark it will have to integrate
seamlessly with communication technology - not just chat and messaging,
I mean telephony, teleconferencing, and yes - shared office work.
Therefore it must not be designed to be less private and less safe
than any of the other technologies.

I don't need yet another PHP beast where my data isn't safe.
Not because it's PHP, but because it runs on commodity web hosting.

-- 
___ psyc://psyced.org/~lynX ___ irc://psyced.org/welcome ___
___ xmpp:address@hidden ____ https://psyced.org/PSYC/ _____