#SocialMediaStrike resources

Here I will try to maintain a complete page of links to the main #SocialMediaStrike resources. Includes media to share, below.


Social Media Strike! (larrysanger.org)
Basic info on the social media strike:

On July 4 and 5 (at least one day), people with serious grievances against social media—including you?—will go on strike. You could, but obviously don’t have to, announce that you are one of the signatories of the Declaration of Digital Independence. [more]


Declaration of Digital Independence (larrysanger.org)
Articulates our basic digital rights; explains how the social media giants have systematically violated them; proposes some Principles of Decentralized Social Networks, according to which social networks should be decentralized, with the data being owned by individual users rather than corporations:

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. [more]


FAQ about the project to decentralize social media (larrysanger.org)
General background info in FAQ format; explains my motives among much else.

What is the Declaration of Digital Independence?

Here it is. It is not meant to be a general bill of digital rights. Rather, it has the very delimited purposes of (1) declaring that we have the digital rights to free speech, privacy, and security, (2) enumerating the ways in which Big Social Media has violated those rights, and (3) articulating some Principles of Decentralized Social Media Networks, which together define the requirements of a better system of social media.


Principles of Decentralized Social Networks (vuild.com)
A clever disappearing copy of just the above-mentioned Principles.

We free individuals should be able to publish our data freely, without having to answer to any corporation. [more]


Proposing a 'Declaration of Digital Independence' (wired.com, March 12, 2019)
Longer background document explaining the essential problem with social media—centralization—and how to achieve decentralization. This is where I first articulated the plan I'm pursuing now (the combination of the Declaration, a strike, and some later-planned mass try-outs of alternative social media networks that are more committed to decentralization).

THIS MESSAGE IS mainly for the leaders and enthusiasts of the broad-based movement toward decentralizing content, but especially social media. I’m not trying to start a new project or organization—after all, decentralization is what I am encouraging. I’m partly trying to start a conversation among individuals, to get them thinking and talking—but on a massive scale. But I’m also trying to inspire people to action, to come together and go the last mile to achieving robust and extremely widespread decentralization. [more]


How to decentralize social media, according to Wikipedia's co-founder (thenextweb.com, Feb. 20, 2019)
The first article I wrote on this idea is relatively short and to the point:

The problem about social media is that it is centralized. Centralization empowers massive corporations and governments to steal our privacy and restrict our speech and autonomy. [more]

Some of the first copies of the Declaration

Vuild.com (just the Principles) - ZeroHedge (complete) - ReclaimTheNet (summarized)

The Declaration is shareable under the CC-by-sa license. I'll make an effort to add your copy/version here if you'll let me know about it.

Media to share

I didn't make these...thanks to the awesome people who did.

Here's a fantastic short video to use on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/SEDart4/status/1146517273617850372

and elsewhere (Google Drive link).

See also this image that you can use for your profile pictures.

Essentials: Declaration of Digital Independence -- Social Media Strike! -- FAQ about the project to decentralize social media -- Resources


Declaration of Digital Independence

Version 1.3 (June 29, 2019; version history)

See also: Social Media Strike! -- FAQ about the project to decentralize social media -- Resources

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

https://widget.civist.cloud/?api_url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.civist.cloud%2Ft%2F9caa1a6e-1152-4277-b5b4-2bd8cbb855e2%2F#/RW1iZWRkaW5nOmY0OTVkZjBiLTUxMjgtNDk0Mi1hM2UyLThlOTM2MjAyODg4MA==

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.

Monticello (Thomas Jefferson's residence)
Monticello (Thomas Jefferson's residence)
(c) 2019 Larry Sanger


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Social Media Strike!

Short URL for this page: tiny.cc/july45

See also: Declaration of Digital Independence -- FAQ about the project to decentralize social media -- Resources

On July 4 and 5 (at least one day), people with serious grievances against social media—including you?—will go on strike. You could, but obviously don't have to, announce that you are one of the signatories of the Declaration of Digital Independence.

This means we will not use social media on those days, except to post notices that we are on strike. We’re going to make a lot of noise. Nobody will be able to ignore what’s happening. We’re going to flex our collective muscles and demand that giant, manipulative corporations give us back control over our data, privacy, and user experience.

Who: You. The more, the merrier! We’re urging you to go on strike with us. (“We” means nothing more than “all the rest of us who have serious grievances about social media—privacy, free speech, or something else.”)

What: A
collective pause in our use of social media, except to post notices
and memes that:

  1. Declare that we are on strike. Use hashtag #SocialMediaStrike.
  2. (Optional.) Point to a copy of the Declaration of Digital Independence (preferably, your own; see “How” below). Invite others to sign the Declaration.
  3. Urge others to join the strike. Ask your friends, family, and followers to sign and strike.

Hashtag:
#SocialMediaStrike

When:
July 4 and 5. At least one
day. Striking on both days
is likely to be more effective.

Why:
We, the strikers, urge the global developer community to perfect a
new system of decentralized
social media.
This
strike, if
successful,
will raise show
the world—Big Tech corporations, governments, developers, and
social media users—that there is a massive demand for a system in
which

  • Each
    of us individually owns our own data. Each of us individually
    controls it, just as we have control over our email, text messages,
    and blogs. It can be totally private, courtesy
    end-to-end encryption, or totally public; the choice is up to us.
  • Social
    media services stop acting as silos but become interoperable. If we
    make a post on one service, it can appear on another service.
  • Instead,
    social media services compete to create the best user
    experiences
    for a common pool of data.
  • Social
    media services agree
    upon and use a common, universal set of standards and protocols.
    This is how social media should have been developed from the
    beginning, rather than walled off in separate, competing networks.

In
this way, social media would
works the way websites, email, text messages, and blog hosting and
readers work: as neutral service providers.

What
we hope will happen:

  • Your
    followers will start seeing strike notices in their feeds on July 4.
  • Probably,
    most will
    ignore the
    first messages.
    But more and more notices will be appear. Strikers will start
    calling out scabs for posting when they should be striking.
  • With
    luck, by
    sometime on July 4, feeds will be absolutely flooded with strike
    notices.
  • When
    that happens, the
    news media at all levels will have to report on it.
  • Similarly,
    Big
    Social Media will have to issue statements responding to the
    Declaration and to any
    public
    criticisms from many quarters.
  • By
    the end, everyone will have learned how much support there is for
    decentralizing social media, taking the control out of the hands of
    Big Social Media, and returning ownership, control, and privacy to
    the ordinary user.

How:
It
should be fairly simple:

  1. Optional, for those signing the Declaration:
    1. Make your own copy of the Declaration: If you have time, energy, and ability, make your own copy of the Declaration. (It’s Creative Commons so this is 100% OK.) I would love for there to be a million copies of this document floating around. If you agree with everything except a few points, fine: make your own edits to your copy. Note: If you do make your own edits, please list them in a Proposed Changes section. If you copy somebody else’s text, clearly link to the version you’re copying.
    2. Sign the declaration. Please at least sign mine. But sign lots of copies (assuming you agree with their changes); I will.
    3. Encourage others to do the same.
  2. Set up a posting bot, if available. Hopefully, a programmer or several will create bots (browser plugins or apps) you can quickly and easily set up to post notices of the strike, links, memes, etc., for you on the appointed dates. Note: I’m not responsible for anything anyone else creates. Please check out any such service’s privacy policies before using it.
  3. Actually go on strike. Don’t post anything on your Big Social Media accounts on July 4 and/or 5 (preferably both days), except posts of the sort described under “What” above.
  4. Feel free to explore alternatives on those days. Those two days would be excellent days to check out the alternative social media sites of your choice, ones that are committed to privacy, security, and free speech; please give your full attention to sites/apps that support the Declaration.

What coders can
do to help:

Here
are some ideas:

  1. Write
    a strike bot. This would be a browser plugin or app that posts for
    users every hour (say) according to their specifications.
  2. Organize
    and participate in a conversation (I won’t be organizing it
    myself) to get all social media apps using the same standards.
    Critique code, in particular on APIs and implementations of existing
    standards. Help place geek pressure on social networks to adopt
    common standards.
  3. Help
    out with open source social media projects. Lots of them can use
    your help. We need to make them better
    than the Big Social Media offerings. Working together, FOSS
    developers can do it!

What
bloggers/webmasters of all sorts can do to help:

  1. Host your own copy of the
    Declaration.

  2. More
    generally, set up your own websites devoted to the Strike and
    decentralized social media. Host links to resources. Host memes
    and images people can share during the strike on social media.

I
want this effort to be entirely decentralized. I don’t want it to
be centered on larrysanger.org, which
I’m using just because it’s my own site and I don’t want to set
up a new one.
I want it to be decentralized—centerless.
So please, start something similar on your own blog.

More questions? Read the FAQ.

For a deep dive, see the list of resources.


FAQ about the project to decentralize social media

See also: Declaration of Digital Independence -- Social Media Strike! -- FAQ about the project to decentralize social media -- Resources

General questions

What is the Declaration of Digital Independence?

Here it is. It is not meant to be a general bill of digital rights. Rather, it has the very delimited purposes of (1) declaring that we have the digital rights to free speech, privacy, and security, (2) enumerating the ways in which Big Social Media has violated those rights, and (3) articulating some Principles of Decentralized Social Media Networks, which together define the requirements of a better system of social media.

Can you summarize the latter principles?

I'll try. Essentially, social media should be decentralized. Our data should be owned and served by ourselves, just as we own and host our own blogs: it's BYOD, or "Bring Your Own Data." Social media services like Facebook, Twitter, and their smaller alternatives and successors should aggregate the data from many different places, just as blog readers aggregate blogs. In short, they should be fully interoperable not just with each other but with their many smaller competitors.

If you do happen to stick with Facebook or Twitter, your data should be able to be exported to and synced with an independent data repository they don't control. This would take the pressure off of conservative and libertarian calls to regulate the Social Media Giants: they could still censor whomever they like, but unlike at present, your followers would be able to find the unexpurgated versions of your feeds elsewhere, and you'd be able to follow them without joining censorious networks. If you wanted to use a freer social media reader that is plugged into a broader, more neutral, all-encompassing social network, you'd be able to do so.

In addition, social media readers would, to be competitive, have to give users much more control over their feeds and what they're capable of seeing (and what is hidden from them).

Where can I read more about the idea in general?

Aside from the Declaration itself, see this long Wired article I wrote and a blog post (which appeared on TNW) that sort of kicked off this effort.

Is this a new idea?

No, it isn't. People have been discussing how to "decentralize social media" (as I put it) since the 2000s and have proposed social media standards. Another term for it it is distributed social network, although my take might be a little different from older ideas.

What are your goals? What are you trying to achieve?

Ultimately, all I personally am trying to do is to help usher in a new system of decentralized social media and, in general, a newly decentralized Internet. I'm basically a dissatisfied customer. I don't have any project I'm pushing. In my day job I'm working on an encyclopedia project.

In the short run, however, I have much more delimited goals:

  1. Get many signatures on the Declaration of Digital Independence. I want it to go massively viral. I want millions of signatures. I want everyone to become aware of decentralized social media as an option.
  2. Make the social media strike on July 4-5 a roaring success. Create a massive media event that forces the social media giants, as well as the commentariat, to start discussing this seriously. Nothing would do that better than flexing our collective muscle.
  3. Divert traffic to social media alternatives, especially ones that are committed to decentralized social media rather than building yet more silos. They need all the help they can get, and I want to see what they're like at scale.

My medium-term goal is to get all the social media players into one room, at least metaphorically speaking, under tremendous public pressure to adopt common, open, and fair standards so that the various networks become fully interoperable (and thus open to broader competition from smaller players).

What is the biggest problem standing in the way of decentralizing social media?

It's actually a problem that is at once technical and social: we must get all the players on the same page, not just using some open standards or other, but the same standards. You can't have blog readers without all those blogs publishing feeds using the RSS standard (another, lesser-known but common blog standard is Atom).

What reason is there to think that Twitter, for example, would choose to support a more decentralized system? Seems crazy!

Well, that's what I thought too, until I asked Jack Dorsey point-blank:

(1) Once the standards for microposts are properly settled on, will you, Jack, enable Twitter users to incorporate Twitter-style microposts that are hosted elsewhere inline in their Twitter feeds?

Jack answered:

Yes. If we want to serve the public conversation (our purpose) we need to be more expansive than just what’s on Twitter. There’s real work here of course.

I also asked:

(2) Will you create tools to let people export and sync their tweets with microposts from outside of Twitter? [Jack prompted me to clarify "sync" some more.] Since people might want to post using different services but to the same personal micropost feed, a syncing process would have to occur to avoid forking/conflicts. An important part of the request here is that the exporting is done not just via Twitter's API (already in place) but via a standard, like an RSS feed, or even perhaps to a separate data storage (e.g., maybe I'd prefer to serve my own data from my personal cloud).

Jack answered:

I don’t see why not. ... [And in response to the "syncing" clarification.] Ah yes. I can see that.

Finally, I asked:

(3) And will you give users a lot more control over their feeds?

Jack replied:

Yes. We took a tiny step with the switch at the top of the timeline. Realize it’s small. But points to direction.

Much to my surprise, Jack then reached out and we discussed some details of Twitter's plans, which (without giving anything away) sounded excellent to me. He liked my Wired article; the description he used over the phone was "spot-on." So we'll see.

Even Mark Zuckerberg, whom I don't trust as far as I could kick him, paid lip service to neutral technical protocols and touts encryption which he finds "decentralizing," even while he backs away from firm commitment to end-to-end encryption. Because we need to protect your safety, of course. He also pays lip service to "data portability." So who knows?

About me (and my nonexistent organizational motives)

Who are you?

I'm Larry Sanger, currently CIO of Everipedia, the blockchain encyclopedia startup, and in 2001 I co-founded Wikipedia. It was my idea to apply wiki tech to the problem of creating an encyclopedia. I named the project and led it and its predecessor for a couple of years. It wouldn't exist if I hadn't have shown the world how to use wikis to write encyclopedias. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy from Ohio State (2000) and have spent most of my career after academia starting or advising a variety of other reference and educational websites. I write and speak on a wide variety of themes about the Internet, philosophy, technology, education, etc. I've been steadily online since about 1992 or 93, although I first accessed the Internet via a dialup modem in the early 80s.

Are you trying to start a movement?

No. I am trying to call attention to one that already exists.

But you want to start decentralized social media networks, right? Or what is your angle, or your goal?

I don't want to start a new social media network. (I am not interested in quitting my job. I'm CIO of an encyclopedia network.) I'm also not affiliated with any social media company or project. I'm not angling to be. Finally, I'm not a member of organizations devoted to decentralizing social media; apart from my recent efforts, I don't think I'm particularly well-known to the people who are in such organizations. I'm also not angling to infiltrate or take them over.

But I'm a fan of what they're doing. I want them to be more successful so I can start using their excellent hard work more actively.

I'm deeply upset with Big Social Media, and that is ultimately why I posted the "Declaration of Digital Independence." I'm just a dissatisfied customer with a blog and a modest following.

A few months ago on this blog, I stumbled upon a common and obvious idea, i.e., that we should decentralize social media. I ran with that in a couple speeches and a Wired article, and here I am, executing something like the plan I set out there.

What sort of organization are you starting here?

I'm not starting an organization at all. I have no committee or inner circle (this bit is contrary to plan; I'll explain why I changed this strategy in a bit). It's just me. And you. I want this to be really grass-roots. And if it doesn't take off, too bad—I don't really want to join anything more formal.

Organizations devoted quite explicitly to social media decentralization, data self-ownership, and related causes already exist. I lack the time and energy to work within those organizations. Those who are more professionally and exclusively committed to the cause should seek out those organizations and join them.

Why not work within (or start) an organization?

I find organizations to be limiting. I want to drive forward not an organization but a pre-existing movement. The movement, after all, is to decentralize social media. That means there's no center. Or if there is one kinda-sorta, I'm not that interested in being part of it. I'm a cat who wants to be a cat herder.

But aren't you organizing people who support your effort?

Not really; I don't want that role. I don't have "an effort" beyond cheerleading for something we all seem to want. I have a day job. I hereby disavow any role as the leader of any organization. I just want lots of people to republish the Declaration, or if they don't like it, come up with their own. I just want to persuade developers and investors and nonprofits and yes, maybe even governments if they can not try to take things over, to usher in a new age of decentralized social media. I want to do whatever I can individually to start a grassroots movement to get coders working on, and to get users switching to, any networks that respect the "Principles of Decentralized Social Networks."

Maybe you don't want to call it an organization, but isn't there a lot going on behind the scenes here?

No, not really, not as of this writing, there isn't much that I haven't shared quite openly. I'm not pulling strings anywhere, and nobody is pulling my strings. What you see is what you get. That's how I like best to operate.

So-and-so claims to be part of your organization or to speak on behalf of the Declaration. Is that right?

No it isn't. I don't have an organization, therefore nobody is part of my organization.


Version history for "Declaration of Digital Independence"

1.3 (2019-06-29) Added CC-by-sa license (thought I had done this earlier but apparently not).

1.2 (2019-06-29) Added a quote from Thomas Jefferson, author of the original Declaration, and a picture of his Monticello.

1.12 (2019-06-26) Bolded the words "We, therefore, the undersigned people of the Internet".

1.11 (2019-06-25) In the preamble, to "centralized architecture of the Internet", add "at present"; also, changed "exploitative spirit" to "exploitative animus".

1.1 (2019-06-25) In the catalog of outrages, changed "privacy, security, and free speech" to "free speech, privacy, and security". Moved "They have practiced in-house moderation..." to the first place. Added in the second place this new point: "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." Added in the third place this new point: "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."

1.02 (2019-06-10) At the end of the preamble, expand "But it has become abundantly clear more recently that a callous, secretive, controlling, and exploitative spirit guides the centralized networks of the Internet" by appending "and the corporations behind them." This is to clarify the meaning of "they" in the catalog of outrages. This is also why in the next paragraph we add, to "To show what train of abuses we have suffered", the clause "at the hands of these giant corporations".

1.01 (2019-06-09) In "Principles of Decentralized Social Networks" 4, append to "Just as no one has the right to eavesdrop on private conversations in homes" the clause "without extraordinarily good reasons".

1.0 (2019-06-09) First posted version.


Some thoughts on the new Voice.com project

This evening we finally learned what the #B1June hype was all about: among other things, a new social media system called Voice.com, built by Block.one, the company behind the outrageously well-performing EOS token. (Full disclosure: Everipedia, where I am CIO, is built on EOS and is the recipient of a major investment from Block.one.)

The site isn't operational yet, and I couldn't find an app in Apple's App Store, but you can sign up for the beta on Voice.com and view a very interesting-sounding rundown of features.

In their introduction to the project this evening at a very glitzy gala event at the D.C. Armory in Washington, D.C., CEO Brendan Blumer and CTO Dan Larimer said that there were huge problems with existing social media giants. The small changes Big Social Media is likely to make won't solve the root problem: you are the product. As long as the social media giants make their business the collection and sale of data about you, you will lack control over your data and your user experience.

They also find a serious problem in fake accounts. Certainly I wonder how many accounts upvoting my posts on Twitter correspond to at least one person, and some responses one sees there sound mindless and robotic enough to have come from bots.

The fact that Block.one has got that much right makes me optimistic about what will be eventually released.

The coming features they advertise:

  • Voices.com will confirm that every user is a real person. I pressed Block.one engineers for information on how this would work, but they remained mum.
  • The Voice network features a new token, the Voice token (I think it's officially rendered as $VOICE). The only way to create the token is when others upvote your content. There will be no ICO or airdrop. And you can't purchase Voice tokens. That's kind of neat. No word on whether you can cash in your Voice in dollars or EOS somehow. A fair bit is rather vague at this point, to be honest.
  • If you have a message you want to get out, you can spend Voice tokens that you have legitimately earned to boost it, even to the top of a queue (not sure which queue). If others agree that your post is important and upvote it, you can get your Voice back and then some. That's kind of neat.

To my mind, there are as many questions raised as answered here. Anyway, I had two thoughts I wanted to pass on to Block.one and to the Internet void.

First, getting "one person, one account" correct and operational is very important and very hard, and I'll be watching closely to see if they've done it. As I explain in a requirements paper I'm at work on, there are at least four requirements of such a system:

  1. That a person with some essential uniquely identifying information (such as, perhaps, a name, a birthplace, and an email address) actually exists.
  2. That the person thus uniquely identified is actually the owner of a certain account on the network (and thus bears that name, has that birthplace, and owns that email address).
  3. That the person is not in control of some other account. (This is particularly difficult, but it is required if it is one person, one account.)
  4. That the person remains in control (and has not passed on or lost control of the account).

This, or something like it, I want to propose as the gold standard of online identity. I take an interest in this because we need to verify that Everipedia accounts are "one person, one vote" (OPOV) accounts for purposes of voting on encyclopedia articles.

Let's see how many of these requirements the new EOS identity protocol can satisfy.

Second, since Everipedia is built on EOS, I very much hope Voice.com ends up being fully decentralized. The first requirement of a fully decentralized system is to use open, common standards and protocols needed to publish, share, and give all users control over their own social media experience, regardless of which app they use. But I heard nothing about open, common social media standards this evening, and while the Block.one engineers I spoke to this evening did say they were considering adopting some such standards, it didn't sound like that would be part of the upcoming launch. I could be surprised, of course.

Another requirement is that posts from outside of the network should be readable (if a user so desires) inside Voice.com feeds. Otherwise, each social media ecosystem is its own silo—and not decentralized. I'm not sure if Voice.com is working on this.

Actually letting users export their Voice.com data very easily (i.e., with RSS-like feeds) so that their friends outside of the new social network can view their posts on other networks is another crucial requirement the new project will have to tackle, if they want me 100% on board.

Finally, lots of fine-grained control over how the user's feed works will all by itself go a long way to convincing me that a company is serious about letting users take back control. No word yet on whether this is in the works for Voice.com, although I did see a nod in that direction.

I would encourage Block.one to consider adding these features so that I can get behind them in the upcoming push for a Declaration of Digital Independence (about a month away), accompanied by a social media boycott and, eventually, mass alternative social media try-outs.

One last thing. I would like to know whether Voice.com will have an end-to-end encrypted messaging system. This isn't easy for anyone to build, but if you want to go head-to-head with the big boys and demonstrate commitment to privacy, it's a very good idea. Maybe Sense Chat can help, since they're moving to EOS. I am thinking more about the importance of this, being already very convinced of the importance of privacy; in fact, I'm increasingly hardcore about it. (I'll be very curious to read Voice.com's new privacy and community policies. Minds.com just updated theirs, y'know.)

But Block.one does seem to be on board; after all, they gave every attendee a hardware security key, something I was going to buy soon anyway. Thanks, guys!


Talk back: Why should we have more restrictions on "harmful" speech on social media?

Dear all,

This is a different sort of blog post.

Rather than me writing yet another essay to you, I want to open the floor to you. I want you to answer something for me. It's like the subreddit "Change My View."

This is aimed specifically at my liberal and progressive friends who are very upset at the social media giants for letting things get so out of hand. See how much of the following applies to you:

You have become increasingly aware of how awful the harassment of women and minorities by the far right has become. You are really, sincerely worried that they have elected Trump, who isn't just a crass clown (many people agree with that) but basically a proto-fascist. You are convinced that Trump must have gotten elected because of the growing popularity of right-wing extremists. They engage in hate speech. Not only is this why Trump was elected, it's why people are constantly at each other's throats today, and why there has been domestic terrorism and mass murder by the right. Therefore, all mature, intelligent observers seem to agree that we need to rein in online hate speech and harmful speech.

I've heard all of this a lot, because I've sought it out in an attempt to understand it—because it freaks me out. Here's the thing: I think it's mostly bullshit. Yes, people (of all political stripes) have gotten nastier, maybe. I didn't vote for Trump and I dislike him. But beyond that, I think the entire line above isn't just annoyingly wrong, it's downright scary. This is largely because I have always greatly valued free speech and this above-summarized mindset has put free speech (and hence other basic liberal democratic/small-r republican values) at risk.

But I'm not going to elaborate my view further now; I mention it only to explain why I want your view first. I'll save an elaboration of my view in a response to you. What I hope you'll do, if you agree with the bold bit above, is to explain your sincere, considered position. Do your best to persuade me. Then, sometime in the next week or two, I'll do my best to persuade you, incorporating all the main points in your replies (assuming I get enough replies).

So please answer: Why should we more aggressively prevent harmful or hate speech, or ban people who engage in such speech, on social media? The "why" is the thing I'm interested in. Don't answer the question, please, if you don't agree with the premise of the question.

Here are some sub-questions you might cover:

  1. Did you used to care more about free speech? What has changed your mind about the relative importance of it?
  2. Do you agree with the claim, "Hate speech is not free speech"? Why?
  3. Exactly where did my "Free Speech Credo" go wrong?
  4. If all you want to say is that "free speech" only restricts government action, and that you don't think corporate actions can constitute censorship, but please also explain any thoughts you have about why it is so important
  5. If you're American and you want Uncle Sam to restrict hate speech, why do you think the law can and should be changed now, after allowing it for so many years? (Surely you don't think Americans are more racist than they were 50 years ago.)
  6. Does it bother you that "hate speech" is very vague and that its application seems to have grown over the years?
  7. If hate speech on the big social media sites bothers you enough to want to get rid of it, what's your stance toward blogs and forums where racists (or people who want to call racists) congregate?
  8. Where should it end, generally speaking? Would you want the National Review banned? Don't just say, "Don't be ridiculous." If that's ridiculous, then where do you draw the line between, for example, banning Paul Joseph Watson from Facebook and using government power to take down a conservative opinion journal?
  9. By the way, do you think it's possible for conservatives and libertarians to be decent people? Honest? Intelligent? Do you think they are all racists? Do you think that articulating all or many conservative or libertarian positions is essentially racist or harmful speech?

Basically, if enough people answer these questions (one or all), I think that'll give me an idea of how your mind actually works as you think this stuff through. This will enable me to craft the most interesting response to you. I want to understand your actual views fully—i.e., not (necessarily) some academic theory, but your real, on-the-ground, down-to-earth views that results in your political stance.


The NAS revolution: Get your data out of the cloud

It turns out the cloud is kind of evil. We blithely put all our data online, right in the hands of giant corporations (and by extension, hackers and governments) who only too happily control, sell, datamine, steal, and spy on it. But you can take control of your data. Now. Here's how.

When most people hear "the cloud," if they have any inkling of what it means, they think of Dropbox, Google Drive, and other file storage and synchronization services of that sort. But if you're hip to the scene, "the cloud" extends to any service that manages your personal data online. The emphasis is on personal data. The cloud, rather than a device of yours, stores data like your calendar (as hosted by, say, Google Calendar) and contacts (as hosted by, say, Apple's iCloud) as well.

If you're a typical plugged-in Internet user, "the cloud" in general manages a stunning amount of your data:

  • Document storage and sync: this includes all the files you might have put in Dropbox, Google Drive, Google Documents, iCloud, Box, Amazon Drive, or Microsoft's OneDrive.
  • Email: Gmail is the 800-pound gorilla, of course.
  • Calendar: Google Calendar and iCloud storage dominate here.
  • Contacts and address books: Google, Microsoft, and iCloud.
  • Online photos: Instagram, Facebook, Google Photos, Flickr, iCloud, and Dropbox all have cloud solutions for sharing your pictures with friends and family.
  • Home video: Facebook and YouTube are probably the main ways we have of storing and sharing our videos with family and friends. There are other options, of course.
  • Movies/TV shows: If you paid for commercially-produced videos that you own the digital rights to, they're in the cloud. This is the direction Apple, Amazon, and YouTube, for example, want you to move in.
  • Notes: Your phone's note-taking app, etc.: iCloud, Evernote, OneNote. The home of your note data is in the cloud, not on your machine.
  • Password apps: Your browser's password saving + sync feature uses the cloud, as do Dashlane, LastPass, 1Password, Enpass, etc.
  • Bookmarks: Your browser (Chrome, Firefox, others) probably syncs your bookmarks for you; the bookmark data is in the cloud.
  • Chat: Yes, chat isn't just a social media type of app. It's also a cloud app for use by private consumers dealing in small groups or one-on-one. If you're like me, you have private chats not just with random strangers, but also with family and friends. Insofar as this data can be presumed to be highly private, it's also "in the cloud" and not just "online."
  • Your blog: If you used to host your own blog, but now write for Medium, Quora, Blogger, Tumblr, WordPress.com, or some other blogging platform, then your blog is now "in the cloud," hosted alongside a zillion other blogs. That goes for web hosting in general, too.
  • Code hosting platforms: If you check your code in on Github or Gitlab, or run it on Digital Ocean or Heroku, your code is in the cloud.

Look at that list, and consider: an amazing amount of our computing is out of our immediate control.

There are two perfectly good reasons for this. First, we own multiple devices and we need to share and sync data among them. We also want to be able to share data with friends and family more easily. But, because this involves networking, it is a much more technically difficult problem for programmers to solve than simply writing desktop software. Since networking and sharing are already done via the Internet, it just makes sense for sharing and syncing services to be coordinated by Internet companies.

Second, simply letting centralized corporate services handle this data coordination is terribly convenient—that's hard to deny.

The necessity of sharing our data, coupled the undeniable convenience of the cloud, sure make it look like the cloud is going nowhere. I mean, what are you going to do, host your own calendar, home videos, and chat apps? How will you sync the data? That's a non-starter for non-technical people. Why not just let the professionals handle it?

But it so happens that, now, you can host your own stuff. How? I'll explain. But first, let's talk a bit about why you might want to host your own stuff.


We are increasingly suspicious of various cloud services, and we should be. It's not just Facebook selling your private chats with Netflix and Spotify, or Medium dictating what you can write in your blog, or Google datamining student data in the cloud—to take a few rather random examples. The events of the last couple years have brought home to many of us some truths we simply didn't want to believe.

What kind of truths?

The vast majority of the cloud services listed above are run by for-profit businesses who naturally place their profits above your interests.

Your data, for them, is an asset. Many cloud companies crucially depend on the ability to exploit data assets. They will sell your data if they can. If they can't, they'll datamine it and sell information about you.

You agreed to that.

You are, like it or not, a participant in many large, standarized systems. Therefore, even though you simply want to use a basic service, if you don't play by their rules, they can control or even block you. Moreover, you probably can't customize the service too much for your own uses. The service providers make the choices for you. You have to go with the flow.

Search and subpoena laws, censorship laws, and government regulations apply to corporations that do not apply to you, the individual. That means information you put in corporate clouds is under the watchful gaze not just of those corporations but also of governments. If you're lucky, you live in a country that respects privacy and free speech even when your data is on a corporate server. But don't count on it.

The reason so many violations of your privacy (something most of us should be a lot more hardcore about) have come to light is that so much of our data is in the cloud now, and a lot of people in business just don't care very much about your privacy. When will Google start using zero-knowledge encryption for all your data that they store? Never. They want access to your data. They need access to your data. It's their business.

Sorry, but them's the facts.

What can we possibly do? Are we at their mercy? Should we, perhaps, trust governments—who also want access to all your data, for your safety—to monitor, regulate, and improve the situation?

But you can take back your data. Now. And if this is news to you, let me admit to you that it was news to me a few months ago when I first heard about it: you can install and manage your very own personal cloud for every single one of the cloud services listed above. And it's not expensive. And it's not that hard to do.

I know it sounds bizarre. It is bizarre, but it's true.


A NAS, or network-attached storage device, was once thought of mainly as a hard drive (or several) attached to your network. But as NAS vendors began selling devices with their own operating systems and Internet connections, the term was repurposed to mean your very own turn-key server. Turn it on, put your stuff on it, and you can access your personal data from anywhere.

NASes are easy to use, but "turn-key" is not quite right. No NAS on the market, that I know of, is as easy to start using as a regular computer is. Getting one up and running takes some time; there is, as they say, a learning curve. But "turn-key" does get the flavor of the most popular NAS brands. The NAS devices for sale by Synology and QNAP especially, and others to a lesser extent, are intended to make it easy to have your own server, or your own "cloud." In fact, Western Digital (WD) sells NASes under the brand name "My Cloud" and markets them as "personal clouds." There's a bit of challenge, but it's not that hard to set these things up (more details below).

The reason to get a NAS, for me—or to get any personal server—is to replace all the software that has moved to the cloud. In case you're skeptical, let me give you a rundown. While I'll be talking about the NAS I just installed for myself and my family, which happens to be from Synology, there's an equally well-reviewed NAS system available from QNAP, and for those who have more technical skill, NextCloud (perhaps on a FreeNAS machine you set up) does many of the same things.

Let's just go down the list I gave above.

  • Document storage and sync. I now have an app that can sync documents on at least eight of my family's devices. I can update the document on my desktop, and if I save it in the Synology's office format, I can edit it directly in the browser, with changes showing up for other users in real time, just like Google Docs. There are documents, spreadsheets, and slides. Chat with other user accounts on your NAS (for me, my family members) is available in every document. This is available everywhere, because it's truly in the cloud. It's just that it's your cloud.
  • Email: You can host your own email on a NAS, if you want to go to heroic lengths that I don't recommend. Like web hosting, this is something you probably should leave to the professionals, for now. I have a feeling this is going to change in coming years, though.
  • Calendar: There's a rather nice app for that.
  • Contacts and address books: It's not "turnkey" yet. But something is available.
  • Online photos: Synology's Moments app automatically syncs your pictures with your camera, identifies people (without sharing data with Synology), uses (stand-alone) sophisticated algorithms to put pictures into categories, etc. Again, the pictures are available for quick and easy download from anywhere, and you don't have to worry about Dropbox or Google or whatever snooping.
  • Home video: Ditto—Moments works fine for this, but so does Video Station. Easily share your home movies with grandma, right from your own machine.
  • Movies/TV shows: Rip all your DVDs and Blu-Rays, then stream them anywhere (to your phone, tablet, computer, or TV) with an interface that looks a lot like Netflix. No need to rely on Apple or Amazon to keep digital copies of your movies for you. Wouldn't you much rather own and serve your own copies? I know I would.
  • Notes: There's an app for that, both for browsers and for your phone.
  • Password apps: Use your NAS's WebDAV server to sync your password data on your own machine; WebDAV is something that Enpass, for example, supports.
  • Bookmarks: Synology and QNAP offer no solution yet, but Nextcloud (which can be run on both) does.
  • Chat: There's a pretty awesome app for that; it closely resembles Slack. There are decent clients for browser, desktop, and mobile, again just like Slack.
  • Your blog: NASes allow you to host blogs and simple websites using your choice of platforms, such as WordPress, Drupal, and Joomla. I'm not saying I recommend this, though; your machine would have to be pretty beefy to handle the traffic you want to get. Server hosting for your blog is another thing that's best left to the professionals. But it's pretty damn cool that you could use a NAS for this.
  • Code hosting platforms: Would you rather not check in your code publicly or on an external server at all? Want to keep it to yourself but continue to be able to share it with people and use Git? There's an app for that. You can also host more advanced websites with many popular programming languages (including Ruby, which I use).

A NAS (which, again, comes in many brands, not just the one I happened to buy) can do all that for you. It's pretty awesome.

But maybe this shouldn't be surprising. After all, a NAS is a fully-functional server, and web hosts now bundle all sorts of turn-key (that word again) software solutions and make it available to their clients. So if you go to GoDaddy or Inmotion Hosting or whatever, they offer all sorts of complex software available to install at the press of a button. Why not slap similar software bundles on a server and sell it to the ordinary consumer? That's what NASes do. (And again, for reasonably skilled IT professionals with time on their hands, they can more easily than ever create their own real servers, which are typically much more powerful and cheaper than NASes. With a proprietary NAS system like Synology, you pay a lot for integrated software, ease of use, and support.) Then just think: insofar as cloud services are, essentially, just putting formerly private data online in the context of a server someone else manages, as soon as consumer web servers became feasible, it makes total sense that you could move your data back to a server you manage.

What do we have to thank for this? The years of fantastic labor by programmers to build and refine all the necessary software layers and scaffolding needed to create something like a "turnkey" solution to running your own server, complete with multiple, ready-made software packages—even if you are nowhere near a professional server administrator.

Put even more simply, a NAS device gives you the power to take control of your own data in your own home. It used to be that we had to rely on the Apples, Googles, and Microsofts of the world in order to connect all the devices we own together, share data with friends, and get the use of common Internet services. With the advent of increasingly easy-to-use NASes, we don't have to. We can declare our independence from Big Tech.


But, you ask, doesn't all this rather awesome software power cost a lot of money? Well, entry-level NAS devices (like this from Synology and this from QNAP) cost less than $200, plus another $80 (say) each for a couple of hard drives. I'm not saying I recommend buying a cheap machine like this, any more than I would recommend buying a cheap laptop. But that might serve your purposes just fine. The point is that these machines are basically computers, so they cost about as much as a computer. The Synology NAS and three drives I got (with space for two more drives whenever I want), together with my fancy new router and modem, cost a little more than my new laptop. (By the way, if you have the time and technical chops to able to set up and maintain a web server with less support, it's easier than ever to do so, and for the same amount of money, you could get a machine that would be much faster and better than my NAS.)

"OK," you say, "maybe it's possible to set up. But how good could it be? I mean, you really think I'll be able to replace my family's Slack group with Synology's chat app? It must be inadequate. Or replace Google Docs with their Office app? That seems unlikely."

Before I saw the capabilities of the systems, that's what I thought, too. Then when I got my own, and started using it (several days ago), the proverbial scales fell from my eyes, and I'm a believer. This is surprisingly solid software. It might have been "bleeding edge" a few years ago, but it's excellent today. The functionality is all accessible via the browser, but there are also a few good desktop apps. It also comes with a lot of excellent iOS apps that you can use to access your NAS's functionality. So far I've installed the photo app (replaces whatever you used to upload your pix to permanent storage and gives you access to all of your pictures, not just the ones currently on your phone), the chat app, the drive app (which is a replacement for both Google Docs and Dropbox), the video app (which allows me to stream videos my boys are ripping from our DVD collection), the notes app (replaces iOS Notes), and the calendar app. So far, I don't see any advantages Slack has over the chat app (just for example). Their collaborative document editing app Synology (Office, installed when you install Drive) is excellent for basic editing, and it seems to be just as good as Google Docs.

"OK," you say, "maybe it's not that expensive, and maybe it's decent quality software. But isn't this a lot of work to install?"

Less than you might think. But it depends on what you mean by "a lot." It takes a few hours, maybe, to turn the thing on, network it with your devices, and get the first services up and running. You'll probably spend more time actually picking the thing out and upgrading your Internet speed as well as modem and router (which is something you'll need to do if you have old equipment). It takes more hours (depending on how much of the functionality of the thing you use) to get the full range of functionality set up—anywhere from ten minutes to several hours, depending on the app. Getting started with Synology's chat app is dead simple, for example, but importing all your pictures might take serious time. A lot of the time I've spent so far has been in migrating data from the Internet and my desktop and backup drives to the NAS.

So, sure, it takes a reasonable time investment. But it is so worth it.

"But," you say, "I'm not a terribly technical person. I can run all the software of the sort you mention if somebody has set it up for me in the cloud, but I can't imagine running my own server."

It's not that bad. Let's just say you need to be a "power user" if you want to do it all yourself. If you have ever set up your own WordPress website, or installed Linux, or registered and pointed a domain name (without help), or done basic programming, then you're up to the task of installing one of these devices without too much help. If you're just a regular computer user, but you have never done anything like that, then installing a NAS might be a bit beyond you. You still might be able to handle it, though.

In any case, I'll bet you know someone who could install one for you if you bought them dinner, or paid them a little. It's not a huge deal. It's not like "setting up your own web server." It's more like "setting up your own home network." It's easy enough for the local geeks to handle.

If you don't have access to a geek, you can hire one.Here's a service, Amazon does it more cheaply, probably Best Buy would do it, some of these guys could do it, etc.


In short, installing and running your own server is today approximately as difficult as computer installation was in 1985, or home networking in 1995, or home theater today. (As it happens, NASes are often purchased as a component in a home theater system.)

The low price and high value of NAS devices, together with their ease of installation, makes me think they're ready to take over the world. I for one am never going back to centralized cloud corporations. I hate them (yes, even Apple), and a growing number of people share my feelings: we absolutely despise the encroachments of those corporations on our privacy and liberty.

Many of us are looking for answers. Many are already doing the sorts of things I listed back in January in "How I'm locking down my cyber-life." In their responses to me there, a few people mentioned they were using their own cloud servers. (Those mentions are what first introduced me to NASes, so please keep up the excellent blog comments!) That struck me at first as being a little too hardcore. Having actually bought and installed a NAS, though, I don't think so. Getting your first NAS is like getting your first computer back in the 80s, or your first smartphone in the 00s. You might have had to wrap your mind around it. It causes a bit of trouble. It requires some getting used to. But probably, you'll forevermore have a computer and a smart phone.

The consumer potential of NAS devices strikes me as being potentially similar. Maybe it will become the sort of device that will seem indispensable in 10 or 20 years. I imagine a conversation with a future child, looking back at the cloud era of 2005-2025:

Child: "How could we ever choose to just give all our data to giant corporations? It was so insecure and allowed mass surveillance by government. Were people crazy?"

Greybeard: "Sort of, but you can't really blame us. During that time, the software for NASes wasn't developed well enough yet for ordinary people to run their own servers. But once a few companies started really nailing it, everybody started buying their own NASes, because it was easy. The people who kept using Gcal, Dropbox, Google Docs, Instagram, etc.—well, if you were as old as I am, you'd know what these are—those people started looking uncool. All the cool kids were serving their data themselves."

Child: "Like everybody does now?"

Greybeard: "Yes, like everybody does now."

That could happen. But is it realistic? Time will tell. Sure, it's possible that owning your own cloud server will forever be the domain of geeks. But an industry analysis from a year ago says we're moving in that direction:

The NAS market is witnessing an accelerated growth and is projected to register robust [20%] growth over the forecast timeline [to 2024] due to the rapidly increasing applications of Big Data analytics & data mining, increasing popularity of NAS solutions in home/consumer applications, and the growing adoption of cloud-based network attached storage solutions.
Global Market Insights, May 2018


In the struggle against privacy incursions, we have tools beyond NASes, of course. In fact, I see two other, concurrent trends that will allow us to fight back. There is the growing demand to own your own data and decentralize social media. (I was writing and speaking a lot about that in the last few months, but don't think I've dropped the issue.) And there is, of course, the massive, revolutionary impact of blockchain, the essential effect of which is to disintermediate economic relationships. Being all about encryption, the blockchain world holds out the promise of a new kind of secure, private, encrypted cloud computing.

Allow me to speculate about how the Internet might work in ten or twenty years.

Many of us (I imagine someone saying, a few decades hence) have installed a NAS or, if we're geekier, have a server rack at home. Pretty much all small businesses run their own NASes as well. From these devices, we serve most of the data that was formerly held by Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. Many of us even run our own mail servers, both because it's more secure and because the software and industry standards have improved so much that it became feasible. Our blogs are also hosted at home; the shift came with NAS tools that made it dead simple to transfer data and settings from remote servers to our local one.

Of course, some of us hit the big time with our blogs and websites. But they are still run from home. This is not something we could possibly have imagined in 2010. At that time, no one even imagined the implications of distributed computing on the blockchain, of which EOS was an early supporter. Whenever we update our NAS, it communicates with various blockchain services using zero-knowledge encryption. This shares out our data (and, when we choose, the keys to unlock it) among many other users who participate in the same system; thus our NASes are constantly working, supporting the whole tech ecosystem. We have no way of knowing which encrypted Internet services are being worked on in this decentralized cloud, which is much more of a "cloud" than the early Dropbox ever was. In any event, if a blog of ours gets a lot more traffic than our NAS can handle, then if we have turned on blockchain integration, the traffic is assembled and served using many other machines—and we, of course, have to pay more into the system or else our users will experience bad old-fashioned server lag.

In a similar way, our social media data is served, and locked down, using our own NASes. The days of Facebook selling our private, proprietary data are long over; social media companies still have dossiers on you, but they aren't as thick, and they aren't informed by any private information.

Perhaps what really got the ball rolling was Edward Snowden in 2013 and others revealing that the NSA (and other government agencies) were listening in on pretty much everything you do online. Once Facebook repeatedly made it clear that they don't care one little bit about your privacy, and people started moving their social media data to their NASes, the usual suspects in government began to complain loudly that encryption prevented them from their mass surveillance. They didn't put it that way, of course, but that's what they were upset about. They really didn't like it when NAS companies made easy, turnkey drive encryption standard and started pushing and teaching two-factor authentication.

In any event, now that social media content is served from our NASes—with support from blockchain networks—your feed is constructed by pulling your data from literally all over, but incredibly fast, because requests can be fulfilled from many different machines, some of which are bound to be nearby.

There was a time when IoT (the Internet of Things) was regarded as not very viable, because people didn't want to buy objects that could be used to spy on them. NASes and the blockchain, again, changed all that. When open source NAS software came into existence proving that your IoT data was stored on your NAS and unlikely to leak out (or, no more than any other of your data), and that it was always routed using encryption, and when this data became possible to sell on the blockchain without compromising your personal security, the whole ecosystem just took off: that's when "secure, monetizable IoT data" became a thing. Even data from your car is routed through your NAS (not through the NSA) if everything is set up properly, so that the NSA and automobile manufacturers can't spy on you. Of course, in an emergency, your data is sent by the fastest (and less secure) route possible, but you always get a notice in that case.

In a lot of ways, the Internet is the same as it was in the 1990s and 2000s. But most websites store your information encrypted in the blockchain, and they know they have to interact via blockchain services if they want to do work on it securely—because nobody is willing, any longer, to expose their data if they don't have to.


Well, we can dream.


Zuckerberg Is Wrong: Don't Regulate Our Content

Last Sunday, Mark Zuckerberg made another Facebook strategy post. (This is his second major policy post in as many months. I responded to his March 6 missive as well.) Unsurprisingly, it was a disaster.

I want to shake him by his lapels and say, "Mark! Mark! Wrong way! Stop going that way! We don't want more snooping and regulation by giant, superpowerful organizations like yours and the U.S. government! We want less!"

He says he has spent two years focused on "issues like harmful content, elections integrity and privacy." If these have been the focuses of someone who is making motions to regulate the Internet, it's a good idea to stop and think a bit about each one. They are a mixed bag, at best.

1. Zuckerberg's concerns

Concern #1: "Harmful content"

Zuckerberg's glib gloss on "harmful content" is "terrorist propaganda, hate speech and more." Applying the modifier "harmful" to "content" is something done mainly by media regulators, giant corporations like Facebook, and the social justice left. Those of us who still care about free speech—and I think that's most of us—find the phrase not a little chilling.

Let's be reasonable, though. Sure, on the one hand, we can agree that groups using social media to organize dangerously violent terrorism, or child pornography, or other literally harmful and illegal activity, for example, should be shut down. And few people would have an issue with Facebook removing "hate speech" in the sense of the KKK, Stormfront, and other openly and viciously racist outfits. That sort of thing was routinely ousted from more polite areas of the Internet long ago, and relegated to the backwaters. That's OK with me. Reasonable and intellectually tolerant moderation is nothing new.

On the other hand, while all of that can perhaps be called "harmful content," the problem is how vague the phrase is. How far beyond such categories of more uncontroversially "harmful" content might it extend? It does a tiny bit of harm if someone tells a small lie; is that "harmful content"? Who knows? What if someone shares a conservative meme? That's sure to seem harmful to a large minority of the population. Is that a target? Why not progressive memes, then? Tech thought leaders like Kara Swisher would ban Ben Shapiro from YouTube, if she could; no doubt she finds Shapiro deeply harmful. Is he fair game? How about "hateful" atheist criticisms of Christianity—surely that's OK? But how about similarly "hateful" atheist criticisms of Islam? Is the one, but not the other, "harmful content"?

This isn't just a throwaway rhetorical point. It's deeply important to think about and get right, if we're going to use such loaded phrases as "harmful content" seriously, unironically, and especially if there is policymaking involved.

The problem is that the sorts of people who use phrases like "harmful content" constantly dodge these important questions. We can't trust them. We don't know how far they would go, if given a chance. Indeed, anyone with much experience debating can recognize instantly that the reason someone would use this sort of squishy phraseology is precisely because it is vague. Its vagueness enables the motte-and-bailey strategy: there's an easily-defended "motte" (tower keep) of literally harmful, illegal speech, on the one hand, but the partisans using this strategy really want to do their fighting in the "bailey" (courtyard) which is riskier but offers potential gains. Calling them both "harmful content" enables them to dishonestly advance repressive policies under a false cover.

"Hate speech" functions in a similar way. Here the motte is appallingly, strongly, openly bigoted speech, which virtually everyone would agree is awful. But we've heard more and more about hate speech in recent years because of the speech in the bailey that is under attack: traditional conservative and libertarian positions and speakers that enfuriate progressives. Radicals call them "racists" and their speech "hate speech," but without any substantiation.

It immediately raises a red flag when one of the most powerful men in the world blithely uses such phraseology without so much as a nod to its vagueness. Indeed, it is unacceptably vague.

Concern #2: Elections integrity

The reason we are supposed to be concerned about "elections integrity," as one has heard ad nauseam from mainstream media sources in the last couple years, is that Russia caused Trump to be elected by manipulating social media. This always struck me as being a bizarre claim. It is a widely-accepted fact that some Russians thought it was a good use of a few million dollars to inject even more noise (not all of it in Trump's favor) into the 2016 election by starting political groups and spreading political memes. I never found this particularly alarming, because I know how the Internet works: everybody is trying to persuade everybody, and a few million dollars from cash-strapped Russians is really obviously no more than shouting in the wind. What is the serious, fair-minded case that it even could have had any effect on the election? Are they so diabolically effective at propaganda to influence elections that, with a small budget, they can actually throw it one way or another? And if so, don't you think that people with similar magically effective knowhow would be on the payroll of the two most powerful political parties in the world?

Concern #3: Privacy

As to privacy—one of my hobby horses of late—Zuckerberg's concern is mainly one of self-preservation. After all, this is the guy who admitted that he called you and me, who trusted him with so much of our personal information, "dumb f--ks" for doing so. This is a guy who has built his business by selling your privacy to the highest bidder, without proposing any new business model. (Maybe they can make enough through kickbacks from the NSA, which must appreciate how Facebook acts as an unencrypted mass surveillance arm.)

Mark Zuckerberg has absolutely no credibility on this issue, even when describing his company's own plans.

He came out last month with what he doubtless wanted to appear to be a "come-to-Jesus moment" about privacy, saying that Facebook will develop the ultimate privacy app: secret, secured private chatting! Oh, joy! Just what I was missing (um?) and always wanted! But even that little bit (which is a very little bit) was too much to hope for: he said that maybe Facebook wouldn't allow total, strong, end-to-end encryption, because that would mean they couldn't "work with law enforcement."

The fact, as we'll see, that he wants the government to set privacy rules means that he still doesn't care about your privacy, for all his protestations.

Zuckerberg's declared motives are dodgy-to-laughable. But given his recommendation—that the government start systematically regulating the Internet—you shouldn't have expected anything different.

2. Mark Zuckerberg wants the government to censor you, so he doesn't have to.

Zuckerberg wants to regulate the Internet

In his previous missive, Zuckerberg gave some lame, half-hearted ideas about what Facebook itself would do to shore up Facebook's poor reputation for information privacy and security. Not so this time. This time, he wants government to take action: "I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators." But remember, American law strives for fairness, so these wouldn't be special regulations just for Facebook. They would be regulations for the entire Internet.

"From what I've learned," Zuckerberg declares, "I believe we need new regulation in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability."

When Zuckerberg calls for regulation of the Internet, he doesn't discuss hardware—servers and routers and fiber-optic cables, etc. He means content on the Internet. When it comes to "harmful content and election integrity," he clearly means some harmful and spurious content that has appeared on, e.g., Facebook. When he talks about "privacy and data portability," he means the privacy and portability of your content.

So let's not mince words: to regulate the Internet in these four areas is tantamount to regulating content, i.e., expression of ideas. That suggests, of course, that we should be on our guard against First Amendment violations. It is one thing for Facebook to remove (just for example) videos from conservative commentators like black female Trump supporters Diamond and Silk, which Facebook moderators called "unsafe." It's quite another thing for the federal government to do such a thing.

Zuckerberg wants actual government censorship

Now, before you accuse me of misrepresenting Zuckerberg, look at what his article says. It says, "I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators," and in "four areas" in particular. The first-listed area is "harmful content." So Zuckerberg isn't saying, here, that it is Facebook that needs to shore up its defenses against harmful content. Rather, he is saying, here, that governments and regulators need to take action on harmful content. "That means deciding what counts as terrorist propaganda, hate speech and more." And more.

He even brags that Facebook is "working with governments, including French officials, on ensuring the effectiveness of content review systems." Oh, no doubt government officials will be only too happy to "ensure" that "content review systems" are "effective."

Now, in the United States, terrorist propaganda is already arguably against the law, although some regret that free speech concerns are keeping us from going far enough. Even there, we are right to move slowly and carefully, because a too-broad definition of "terrorist propaganda" might well put principled, honest, and nonviolent left- and right-wing opinionizing in the crosshairs of politically-motivated prosecutors.

But "deciding what counts as...hate speech" is a matter for U.S. law? Perhaps Zuckerberg should have finished his degree at Harvard, because he seems not to have learned that hate speech is unregulated under U.S. law, because of a little thing called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As recently as 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a "disparagement clause" in patent law which had said that trademarks may not "disparage...or bring...into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead." This is widely regarded as demonstrating that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. As the opinion says,

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” 

The trouble with the phrase "hate speech" lies in both the ambiguity and the vagueness of the word "hate" itself. "Hate speech" in its core sense (this is the motte) is speech that is motivated by the speaker's own bigoted hatred, but in an ancillary sense (this is the bailey), it means speech that we hate, because in our possibly incorrect opinion we think it is motivated by bigotry (but maybe it isn't). The phrase "hate speech" is also vague and useless because hate comes in degrees, with shifting objects. If I am irritated by Albanians and very mildly diss them, am I guilty of hate speech? Maybe. Jews? Almost certainly. What about white male southerners? Well, what's the answer there? And what if I really strongly hate a group that it is popular to hate, e.g., rapists?

There's much more to be said about this phrase, but here's the point. If government and regulators took Zuckerberg's call for hate speech legislation to heart, what rules would they use? Wouldn't they, quite naturally, shift according to political and religious sentiments? Wouldn't such regulations become a dangerous political football? Would there be any way to ensure it applies fairly across groups—bearing in mind that there is also a Fourteenth Amendment that legally requires such fairness? Surely we don't want the U.S. legal system subject to the same sort of spectacle that besets Canada and the U.K., in which people are prosecuted for criticizing some groups, while very similar criticism of other, unprotected groups goes unpunished?

But precisely that is, presumably, what Zuckerberg wants to happen. He doesn't want to be responsible for shutting down the likes of Diamond and Silk, or Ben Shapiro. That, he has discovered, is an extremely unpopular move; but he's deeply concerned about hate speech; so he would much rather the government do it.

If you want to say I'm not being fair to Zuckerberg or to those who want hate speech laws in the U.S., that of course you wouldn't dream of shutting down mainstream conservatives like this, I point you back to the motte and bailey. We, staunch defenders of free speech, can't trust you. We know about motte and bailey tactics. We know that, if not you, then plenty of your left-wing allies in government and media—who knows, maybe Kara Swisher—would advocate for government shutting down Ben Shapiro. That would be a win. The strategy is clear: find the edgiest thing he has said, label it "hate speech," and use it to argue that he poses a danger to others on the platform, so he should be deplatformed. Or just make an example of a few others like him. That might be enough for the much-desired chilling effect.

Even if you were to come out with an admirably clear and limited definition of "hate speech," which does not include mainstream conservatives and which would include some "hateful," extreme left-wing speech, that wouldn't help much. If the government adopted such "reasonable" regulations, it would be cold comfort. Once the cow has left the barn, once any hate speech law is passed, it's all too easy for someone to make subtle redefinitions of key terms to allow for viewpoint censorship. Then it's only a matter of time.

It's sad that it has come to this—that one of the most powerful Americans in the world suggests that we use the awesome power of law and government to regulate speech, to shut down "hate speech," a fundamentally obscure weasel word that can, ultimately, be used to shut down any speech we dislike—which after all is why the word is used. It's sad not only that this is what he has suggested, but that I have to point it out, and that it seems transgressive to, well, defend free speech. But very well then, I'll be transgressive; I'd say that those who agree with me now have an obligation to be transgressive in just this way.

We can only hope that, with Facebook executives heading for the exits and Facebook widely criticized, Zuckerberg's entirely wrongheaded call for (more) censorship will be ignored by federal and state governments. Don't count on it, though.

But maybe, censorship should be privatized

Facebook is also, Zuckerberg says, "creating an independent body so people can appeal our decisions." This is probably a legal ploy to avoid taking responsibility for censorship decisions, which would make it possible to regulate Facebook as a publisher, not just a platform. Of course, if the DMCA were replaced by some new regulatory framework, then Facebook might not have to give up control, because under the new framework, viewpoint censorship might not make them into publishers.

Of course, whether in the hands of a super-powerful central committee such as Zuckerberg is building, a giant corporation, or the government, we can expect censorship decisions to be highly politicized, to create an elite of censors and rank-and-file thought police to keep us plebs in line. Just imagine if all of the many conservative pages and individuals temporarily blocked or permanently banned by Facebook had to satisfy some third party tribunal.

One idea is for third-party bodies [i.e., not just one for Facebook] to set standards governing the distribution of harmful content and measure companies against those standards. Regulation could set baselines for what's prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum.

Facebook already publishes transparency reports on how effectively we're removing harmful content. I believe every major Internet service should do this quarterly, because it's just as important as financial reporting. Once we understand the prevalence of harmful content, we can see which companies are improving and where we should set the baselines.

There's a word for such "third-party bodies": censors.

The wording is stunning. He's concerned about "the distribution" of content and wants judged "measured" against some "standards." He wants content he disapproves of not just blocked, but kept to a "bare minimum." He wants to be "effective" in "removing harmful content." He really wants to "understand the prevalence of harmful content."

This is not the language that someone who genuinely cares about "the freedom for people to express themselves" would use.

3. The rest of the document

I'm going to cover the rest of the document much more briefly, because it's less important.

Zuckerberg favors regulations to create "common standards for verifying political actors," i.e., if you want to engage in political activity, you'll have to register with Facebook. This is all very vague, though. What behavior, exactly, is going to be caught in the net that's being weaved here? Zuckerberg worries that "divisive political issues" are the target of "attempted interference." Well, yes—well spotted there, political issues sure can be divisive! But it isn't their divisiveness that Facebook or other platforms should try to regulate; it is the "interference" by foreign government actors. What that means precisely, I really wonder.

Zuckerberg's third point is that we need a "globally harmonized framework" for "effective privacy and data protection." Well, that's music to my ears. But it's certainly rich, the very notion that the world's biggest violator of privacy, indeed the guy whose violations are perhaps the single biggest cause of widespread concern about privacy, wants privacy rights protected.

He wants privacy rights protected the way he wants free speech protected. I wouldn't believe him.

Zuckerberg's final point is another that you might think would make me happy: "regulation should guarantee the principle of data portability."

Well. No. Code should guarantee data portability. Regulation shouldn't guarantee any such thing. I don't trust governments, in the pockets of "experts" in the pay of giant corporations, to settle the rules according to which data is "portable." They might, just for instance, write the rules in such a way that gives governments a back door into what should be entirely private data.

Beware social media giants bearing gifts.

And portability, while nice, is not the point. Of course Zuckerberg is OK with the portability of data, i.e., allowing people to more easily move it from one vendor to another. But that's a technical detail of convenience. What matters, rather, is whether I own my data and serve it myself to my subscribers, according to rules that I and they mutually agree on.

But that is something that Zuckerberg specifically can't agree to, because he's already told you that he wants "hate speech and more" to be regulated. By the government or by third party censors.

You can't have it both ways, Zuckerberg. Which is it going to be: data ownership that protects unfettered free speech, or censorship that ultimately forbids data ownership?


How to decentralize social media—a brief sketch

The problem about social media is that it is centralized. Centralization empowers massive corporations and governments to steal our privacy and restrict our speech and autonomy.

What should exist are neutral, technical standards and protocols, like the standards and protocols for blogs, email, and the Web. Indeed, many proposed standards already do exist, but none has emerged as a common, dominant standard. Blockchain technology—the technology of decentralization—is perfect for this, but not strictly necessary. Common protocols would enable us to follow public feeds no matter where they are published. We would eventually have our pick of many different apps to view these feeds. We would choose our own terms, not Facebook's or Twitter's, for both publishing and reading.

As things are, if you want to make short public posts to the greatest number of people, you have to go to Twitter, enriching them and letting them monetize your content (and your privacy). Similarly, if you want to make it easy for friends and family to follow your more personal text and other media, you have to go to Facebook. Similarly for various other kinds of content. It just doesn't have to be that way. We could decentralize.

This is a nice dream. But how do we make it happen?

After all, the problem about replacing the giant, abusive social media companies is that you can't replace existing technology without making something so much more awesome that everyone will rush to try it. And the social media giants have zillions of the best programmers in the world. How can we, the little guys, possibly compete?

Well, I've thought of a way the open source software and blockchain communities might actually kick the legs out from under the social media giants. My proposal (briefly sketched) has five parts. The killer feature, which will bring down the giants, is (4):

  1. The open data standards. Create open data standards and protocols, or probably just adopt the best of already-existing ones, for the feeds of posts (and threads, and other data structures) that Twitter, Facebook, etc., uses. I'm not the first to have thought of this; the W3C has worked on the problem. It'd be like RSS, but for various kinds of social media post types.
  2. The publishing/storage platforms. Create reliable ways for people to publish, store, and encrypt (and keep totally secret, if they want) their posts. Such platforms would allow users to control exactly who has access to what content they want to broadcast to the world, and in what form, and they would not have to ask permission from anyone and would not be censorable. (Blockchain companies using IPFS, and in particular Everipedia, could help here and show the way; but any website could publish feeds.)
  3. The feed readers. Just as the RSS standard spawned lots of "reader" and "aggregator" software, so there should be similar feed readers for the various data standards described in (1) and the publishers described in (2). While publishers might have built-in readers (as the social media giants all do), the publishing and reading feature sets need to be kept independent, if you want a completely decentralized system.
  4. The social media browser plugins. Here's the killer feature. Create at least one (could be many competing) browser plugins that enable you to (a) select feeds and then (b) display them alongside a user's Twitter, Facebook, etc., feeds. (This could be an adaptation of Greasemonkey.) In other words, once this feature were available, you could tell your friends: "I'm not on Twitter. But if you want to see my Tweet-like posts appear in your Twitter feed, then simply install this plugin and input my feed address. You'll see my posts pop up just as if they were on Twitter. But they're not! And we can do this because you can control how any website appears to you from your own browser. It's totally legal and it's actually a really good idea." In this way, while you might never look at Twitter or Facebook, you can stay in contact with your friends who are still there—but on your own terms.
  5. The social media feed exporters/APIs. Create easy-to-use software that enables people to publish their Twitter, Facebook, Mastodon, Diaspora, Gab, Minds, etc., feeds via the open data standards. The big social media companies already have APIs, and some of the smaller companies and open projects have standards, but there is no single, common open data standard that everyone uses. That needs to change. If you could publish your Twitter data in terms of such a standard, that would be awesome. Then you could tell your friends: "I'm on Twitter, but I know you're not. You don't have to miss out on my tweets. Just use a tweet reader of your choice (you know—like an old blog/RSS feed reader, but for tweets) and subscribe to my username!

The one-two punch here is the combination of points (1) and (4): First, we get behind decentralized, common social media standards and protocols, and then we use those standards when building plugins that let our friends, who are still using Facebook and Twitter (etc.), see posts that we put on websites like Steemit, Minds, Gab, and Bitchute (not to mention coming Everipedia Network dapps).

The exciting thing about this plan is that no critical mass seems to be needed in order to get people to install the envisioned plugin. All you need is one friend whose short posts you want to see in your Twitter feed, and you might install a plugin that lets you do that. As more and more people do this, there should be a snowball effect. Thus, even a relatively small amount of adoption should create a movement toward decentralization. And then the days of centralized social media will be numbered. We'll look back on the early days of Facebook and Twitter (and YouTube!) as we now do the Robber Barons.

We can look at a later iteration of Everipedia itself as an example. Right now, there is one centralized encyclopedia: Wikipedia. With the Everipedia Network, there will be a protocol that will enable people from all over the web to participate in a much broader project.

I would love to see the various competitors of the social media giants settle on a common standard and otherwise join forces on these sorts of projects. If they do, it will happen, and the days of privacy-stealing, centralized, controlling, Big Brother social media will soon be behind us. We'll return to the superior and individually empowering spirit of the original Internet.

We have to do this, people. This is the future of the Internet. Even if you've given up social media, we should build this for our friends and family who are still toiling in the digital plantations.