[hrpc] Mastodon, and the human rights consequences
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Mon, 10 April 2017 19:56 UTC
Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4361128D6F for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SuAlHyKANmGx for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9770129A96 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id C1C3D31D3F; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:56:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 44F09EC0B15; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:55:26 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:55:26 -0400
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: hrpc@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20170410195526.GA32420@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/HxC67UTFi-cuQ8SPlideiDheie4>
Subject: [hrpc] Mastodon, and the human rights consequences
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "niels@article19.org" <hrpc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:56:16 -0000
By now, you probably have heard of Mastodon, the latest trend in federated social networks. Mastodon is a direct competitor of Twitter, but with free software and, more important, federation of the servers (called "instances" in mastodonian). Its growth (both in number of users and in number of instances) is spectacular. Another example of the strength of the permissionless model. Today, most discussions on Mastodon revolve around Mastodon itself but this will probably change when people will start to use Mastodon for real. What I find specially interesting is that the two main threads have been around two points which have direct human rights consequences. The first big discussion was about the model of instance deployment. Mastodon *allows* anyone to have its own instance (warning: installation today is complicated; for geeks only; and it requires a big machine, your Raspberry Pi won't suffice) but allowing does not mean it's mandatory. Many models are possible for deploying instances: * a few GAFA instances (mastodon.google?) Pros: instances will be managed by professionnals, and will be reliable and durable. Cons: a lot of opportunities for corporate control / censorship, etc. * everyone has her own instance. Pros: maximum user control. Cons: not realistic *today* (the software is still too rough). Does not enable people to cooperate. * organisations (a lot of various organisations) create instances based on a common vision. La Quadrature du Net (a french NGO working on digital liberties) already does it with the instance mamot.fr. Pros: allow people to cooperate when they share something. Cons: you may not find an instance that suits you. Of course, there are other models, and these models are not mutually exclusive. The second big discussion is about the censorship/moderation/callitwhatyouwant policies of instances. The whole point of a federated network is that each instance can have different rules (unlike the ICANN TLDs, which have a huge set of mandatory rules). So, it can be expected that some instances will be restrictive. This raise a lot of issues: * will we always have "free" instances with the minimum legal set of rules or will the users have only a choice between restrictive instances? * will we see restrictive instances blocking the others (the Mastodon software permits it), thus opening the possibility of partitioning the network?
- [hrpc] Mastodon, and the human rights consequences Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [hrpc] Mastodon, and the human rights consequ… Niels ten Oever