<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 3/19/11 6:44 AM, Yannick wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">...</span><br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> The freedom box could be some
kind of front end between the end user <br>
> and services like facebook, specifically designed to put the
user <br>
> into a choice, </span><br>
...<br>
<br>
We might be closer in agreement than it seems, because this is
actually what I want.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> This is fine grained control of
your datas and communication: the <br>
> freedom box should not allow you choose to publish in a
system you <br>
> loose the control without at least a warning (and this will
include <br>
> e.g. facebook), and should always encourage you to publish in
a way <br>
> in which you are *sure* to stay in control.<br>
</span><br>
+1<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> e.g. you could choose to
publish some news at home using the web <br>
> server of the freedom box, and as you aim the general public
while<br>
> do not fear to be pointed out as the author, the system will
allow<br>
> you to publish just a link and an abstract to your facebook
page if<br>
> you have one. This turn facebook into some kind of a poor RSS
feed <br>
> aggregator, still the user choose what should be there and
what <br>
> should not.<br>
</span><br>
Agreed! I'd want FreedomBox to be where I publish and manage things.
Facebook would just be one of many places where my FreedomBox pushes
content.<br>
<br>
FreedomBox as the primary source; Facebook, Twitter, etal would just
be disposable channels.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> e.g. when the web browser of
the freedom box try to access <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://facebook.com">http://facebook.com</a> it will not open the page but instead
will <br>
> present the front end to the user.<br>
</span><br>
I don't know if I'd bother to stand in for facebook.com - that
promotes their brand and they could probably claim abuse of their
trademark.<br>
<br>
I'd offer a private-use website run from the FreedomBox to act as a
front-end client to Facebook (among other things). Make it an
intentional choice, call it a "condom for Facebook" - eg. Never
visit Facebook without protection<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> This proposal is some kind of
working around the poor <br>
> interoperability of hierarchic systems like facebook.<br>
> <br>
> All this only make sens if we do have another system in the
freedom <br>
> box for social networking/web publishing that can superseed
facebook <br>
> and twitter with a better design for freedom.<br>
</span><br>
I want to see that, too. <br>
<br>
Maybe it's an ikiwiki, wordpress, status.net, or plain HTML &
feeds at a cheap web host managed by the FreedomBox. <br>
<br>
Talk to existing services like Twitter and Facebook for legacy
compatibility, but maintain alternative channels that can be placed
entirely under the end-user's control. That way, we can talk to
friends on Twitter, but urge them over to these other channels we
control.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:l.m.orchard@pobox.com">l.m.orchard@pobox.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://decafbad.com">http://decafbad.com</a><br>
{web,mad,computer} scientist<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>