Declaration of Digital Independence

Version 1.3 (June 29, 2019; version history)

See also: Social Media Strike!FAQ about the project to decentralize social mediaResources

This document is included as Chapter 11 of my 2020 book, Essays on Free Knowledge. Please support the struggle for freedom by buying a copy!

Humanity has been contemptuously used by vast digital empires. Thus it is now necessary to replace these empires with decentralized networks of independent individuals, as in the first decades of the Internet. As our participation has been voluntary, no one doubts our right to take this step. But if we are to persuade as many people as possible to join together and make reformed networks possible, we should declare our reasons for wanting to replace the old.

We declare that we have unalienable digital rights, rights that define how information that we individually own may or may not be treated by others, and that among these rights are free speech, privacy, and security. Since the proprietary, centralized architecture of the Internet at present has induced most of us to abandon these rights, however reluctantly or cynically, we ought to demand a new system that respects them properly. The difficulty and divisiveness of wholesale reform means that this task is not to be undertaken lightly. For years we have approved of and even celebrated enterprise as it has profited from our communication and labor without compensation to us. But it has become abundantly clear more recently that a callous, secretive, controlling, and exploitative animus guides the centralized networks of the Internet and the corporations behind them.

The long train of abuses we have suffered makes it our right, even our duty, to replace the old networks. To show what train of abuses we have suffered at the hands of these giant corporations, let these facts be submitted to a candid world.


They have practiced in-house moderation in keeping with their executives’ notions of what will maximize profit, rather than allowing moderation to be performed more democratically and by random members of the community.

They have banned, shadow-banned, throttled, and demonetized both users and content based on political considerations, exercising their enormous corporate power to influence elections globally.

They have adopted algorithms for user feeds that highlight the most controversial content, making civic discussion more emotional and irrational and making it possible for foreign powers to exercise an unmerited influence on elections globally.

They have required agreement to terms of service that are impossible for ordinary users to understand, and which are objectionably vague in ways that permit them to legally defend their exploitative practices.

They have marketed private data to advertisers in ways that no one would specifically assent to.

They have failed to provide clear ways to opt out of such marketing schemes.

They have subjected users to such terms and surveillance even when users pay them for products and services.

They have data-mined user content and behavior in sophisticated and disturbing ways, learning sometimes more about their users than their users know about themselves; they have profited from this hidden but personal information.

They have avoided using strong, end-to-end encryption when users have a right to expect total privacy, in order to retain access to user data.

They have amassed stunning quantities of user data while failing to follow sound information security practices, such as encryption; they have inadvertently or deliberately opened that data to both illegal attacks and government surveillance.

They have unfairly blocked accounts, posts, and means of funding on political or religious grounds, preferring the loyalty of some users over others.

They have sometimes been too ready to cooperate with despotic governments that both control information and surveil their people.

They have failed to provide adequate and desirable options that users may use to guide their own experience of their services, preferring to manipulate users for profit.

They have failed to provide users adequate tools for searching their own content, forcing users rather to employ interfaces insultingly inadequate for the purpose.

They have exploited users and volunteers who freely contribute data to their sites, by making such data available to others only via paid application program interfaces and privacy-violating terms of service, failing to make such freely-contributed data free and open source, and disallowing users to anonymize their data and opt out easily.

They have failed to provide adequate tools, and sometimes any tools, to export user data in a common data standard.

They have created artificial silos for their own profit; they have failed to provide means to incorporate similar content, served from elsewhere, as part of their interface, forcing users to stay within their networks and cutting them off from family, friends, and associates who use other networks.

They have profited from the content and activity of users, often without sharing any of these profits with the users.

They have treated users arrogantly as a fungible resource to be exploited and controlled rather than being treated respectfully, as free, independent, and diverse partners.


We have begged and pleaded, complained, and resorted to the law. The executives of the corporations must be familiar with these common complaints; but they acknowledge them publicly only rarely and grudgingly. The ill treatment continues, showing that most of such executives are not fit stewards of the public trust.

The most reliable guarantee of our privacy, security, and free speech is not in the form of any enterprise, organization, or government, but instead in the free agreement among free individuals to use common standards and protocols. The vast power wielded by social networks of the early 21st century, putting our digital rights in serious jeopardy, demonstrates that we must engineer new—but old-fashioned—decentralized networks that make such clearly dangerous concentrations of power impossible.

Therefore, we declare our support of the following principles.


Principles of Decentralized Social Networks

  1. We free individuals should be able to publish our data freely, without having to answer to any corporation.
  2. We declare that we legally own our own data; we possess both legal and moral rights to control our own data.
  3. Posts that appear on social networks should be able to be served, like email and blogs, from many independent services that we individually control, rather than from databases that corporations exclusively control or from any central repository.
  4. Just as no one has the right to eavesdrop on private conversations in homes without extraordinarily good reasons, so also the privacy rights of users must be preserved against criminal, corporate, and governmental monitoring; therefore, for private content, the protocols must support strong, end-to-end encryption and other good privacy practices.
  5. As is the case with the Internet domain name system, lists of available user feeds should be restricted by technical standards and protocols only, never according to user identity or content.
  6. Social media applications should make available data input by the user, at the user’s sole discretion, to be distributed by all other publishers according to common, global standards and protocols, just as are email and blogs, with no publisher being privileged by the network above another. Applications with idiosyncratic standards violate their users’ digital rights.
  7. Accordingly, social media applications should aggregate posts from multiple, independent data sources as determined by the user, and in an order determined by the user’s preferences.
  8. No corporation, or small group of corporations, should control the standards and protocols of decentralized networks, nor should there be a single brand, owner, proprietary software, or Internet location associated with them, as that would constitute centralization.
  9. Users should expect to be able to participate in the new networks, and to enjoy the rights above enumerated, without special technical skills. They should have very easy-to-use control over privacy, both fine- and coarse-grained, with the most private messages encrypted automatically, and using tools for controlling feeds and search results that are easy for non-technical people to use.

We hold that to embrace these principles is to return to the sounder and better practices of the earlier Internet and which were, after all, the foundation for the brilliant rise of the Internet. Anyone who opposes these principles opposes the Internet itself. Thus we pledge to code, design, and participate in newer and better networks that follow these principles, and to eschew the older, controlling, and soon to be outmoded networks.

We, therefore, the undersigned people of the Internet, do solemnly publish and declare that we will do all we can to create decentralized social networks; that as many of us as possible should distribute, discuss, and sign their names to this document; that we endorse the preceding statement of principles of decentralization; that we will judge social media companies by these principles; that we will demonstrate our solidarity to the cause by abandoning abusive networks if necessary; and that we, both users and developers, will advance the cause of a more decentralized Internet.


Please sign if you agree!

You can also sign on Change.org.

 

Signings

0

Goal

0

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing…

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787. Jefferson was the author of the original Declaration of Independence, signed on July 4, 1776.
CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 82
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

by

Posted

in

, ,

Comments

Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

239 responses to “Declaration of Digital Independence”

  1. It’s about time this happened. This will take time, but I am ready to commit to this cause.

  2. Fabio

    Felicitaciones a todos los firmantes. Resistencia, Chaco. Argentina. Saludos.

  3. For a web closer to the man. For a web with the purpose of knowing and breaking. For a web against the exploitation of personal data. 😛

    Matsouliadis Dimitris, application developer, PCLive – entelsoft
    Thessaloniki, Makedonia, Greece

  4. Rose Dwyer

    Happy Digital Independence Day!

  5. […] filósofo y cofundador de Wikipedia le ha dado un giro a la celebración después de escribir la Declaración de Independencia Digital. El manifiesto exige la descentralización de las redes sociales para que los datos sean propiedad […]

  6. William Wallace

    FFREEEEEEDOOOOOOOOMM

  7. Jennifer Miller

    Thank you for showing courage and standing up for our rights.

  8. Mary Lawrence

    Enough is enough!

  9. Brian Davis

    I strongly support the principles of this declaration.

    I have been subject to politically motivated censorship on Quora. It is really disgusting to feel you can’t say anything that will rub people of a particular political persuasion the wrong way. It may be legal, but abusing content-creating customers in this fashion is reprehensible and tyrannical.

    1. Rocco De Luca

      Rocco De Luca, Cedar Lake, IN

      1st account and oldest, banned for what I suspect was a satirical page that truthfully highlighted the blatantly transparent hypocrisy of the blame shifting alt left extremists. Facebook claimed “hate speech”

      2nd account, almost as old and again, banned for “hate speech”. This time for posting about fair oaks farms and the “revolving door of illegals” as one acquaintance put it, smoking marijuana and cocaine and snorting cocaine while beating calves with branding irons and exercising other forms of unmentionable abuse. Facebook banned me for that because they advocate animal abuse.

      3rd account was jailed for 3 days at which time I deactivated the account for 2 weeks. I returned to find the account was banned 1 day after I reactivated it with no posts made at all.

      I do not want my account(s) reinstated, since Facebook refuses to pay me royalties for use of my intellectual property that is my personal data. I am currently checking into several laws to see if I can convince an attorney to start a or, several class action suit(s) for infringement of personal a liberty/Rights to free speech. Identity theft and copyright infringement as I have applied to have my name, birthday and social security number as the whole that creates my uncle identity, protected under copyright law. I know it sounds ridiculous and impossible but, I’m arguing that while these identifiers are not my property, with acception to my name, I personally have been granted a right/permission to use them and in their combination, creates a unique identity much like that of a company logo, service or product.

      Lastly, I want to mention that since Facebook has banned me, the calls from the IRS office in India…… have suddenly stopped. This is the reason I don’t want my account reinstated. I just want a judge to agree with me and make them pay until they join Myspace in the world wide graveyard!

      Thank you for reading. You’re awesome

  10. Rubèrt Mañé Velilla

    It’s high time this happened. Eager to know results. Congrats!

Leave a Reply to Steph Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *