Re: [Social-discuss] distributed social networks

[marc]

> > >Eight years ago there was this "gnu social p2p" vs
> > >"gnu social" dispute.

> we were only a not coordinated dozen of us for DSN, one for GNU social 
> p2p...

> > well, i hope to help re-open this enterprise project, why not at
> > gnu? makes sense to try. or let's try a bunch of us further
> > something really well based-done.

> humanity would actually need to get away from
> Facebook.

I didnt notice then, but it is still worth trying further now...

(i appreciate all your previous comments on specifying it a bit, i hope 
it raises further debate, which i will be aside as non much techy i am)



> Zeronet runs on Bitmessage?

oups, i confused it with bittorrent, but now i remember there was some 
brazilian guy doing a social network with bitmessage that i don't 
remember it-.-.


> That is one of the great mistakes we have been making in
> this whole discourse - that we only think of ourselves when
> talking privacy. But there is a higher good at stake than
> our personal privileges. It's what's left of democracy.

Well, i meant Completely Personal Data, where noone else is affected by 
my decission to make it completely public, however this could 
technically be made, i should have the right to easily do so.


> > in this sense, as a PoC, i imagine a wysiwyg like editor that let's
> > you offuscate for robots some pieces of some text from some type of
> > content
>
> Huh?

it's an idea for a "metadata makuper" (maybe is not the rigth word..) 
where, i.e. in a text area i select some text not to be visible for 
robots (while keeping the rest public) (or i categorize it as... bla).


> > btw. staying watching something for more than 5 seconds, could be a
> > easy way to moderate anything.
>
> Oink?

it's another idea, related to the example i gave (offtopic here).
imagine your 5 seconds (or more depending on the Text Ks of some 
content) browsing something is gotten by the machine as "some sort of 
aproval by you for that content". it came up as an idea for patching a 
"terryfying warning" someone told me about zeronet, that you will always 
serve what you have browsed, which could be ilegal for example.

now there is some trend with the "contents curator" concept, so made 
sense for me to raise this example



> The critics are
> right, UBI can only work if we radically redesign the
> entire economy.

Agree,
but we can also develop more Local Basic Incomes (or Public Jobs) 
schemas without waiting others approval, endorsements or funding. 
Something like this is likely to create incentive for other economic 
systems to adapt it.

------

cheers, keep it high! :)