Skip to main content

Home/ (HBSN) How to Build a Social Network/ Group items tagged *net

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Kurt Laitner

Liberationtech, How the Next Generation Diaspora* Should Be Built to Help High-Risk Act... - 0 views

liberationtech.tumblr.com/...on-diaspora-should-be-built-to

*YosemEduardoCompanys liberatontech *net diaspora Design

shared by Kurt Laitner on 02 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • design of information and communication technologies to foster freedom, democracy, human rights, development, and effective governance
  • it is important to differentiate between what activists do before a movement and what they do during a movement. 
  • This critical organizing task is done by a small group of people that need to be able to maintain strong ties to one another in a secure and private fashion if they are to succeed.
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • private, secure, and distributed social network
  • facilitate the communication of a small group of people seeking to organize social change and subsequently enable them to broadcast that message through larger mainstream social networking sites
  • communication must be machine-to-machine
  • In other words, the sender and recipient must have an easy and fast means to install and manage the software on their machines
  •  Furthermore, the sender and the recipient must have the ability to stop using their machines and seamlessly use new ones, should the original machines be compromised for whatever reason by an authoritarian regime
  • “self-destruct mechanism”
  • the “right to forget” would have to be embedded
  • mobile
  • capability of synchronizing data on multiple machines simultaneously.
  • capability to access her data from the alternate location
  • connectivity
  • significant work on data compression will be required to ensure that the software’s performance remains nimble under such disparate conditions
  • Western society gives us two main legal-institutional vehicles for tackling the problem:  i) a for-profit firm a la limited liability company or C corporation; or ii) a non-profit firm a la private foundation or 501(c) organization.  (Another possibility is a hybrid for-profit/non-profit model a la WordPress or Mozilla, but let’s set that aside for now.)
  •  The resources come at a cost in terms of the organization having to perform in a reliable and accountable fashion relative to the expectations of its shareholders.  In the pursuit of profit, principle can easily be abandoned since, at the end of the day, all the shareholders care about is obtaining superior returns
  • Nevertheless, a non-profit organization is still owned by a small group of individuals,
  •  The project may even create disincentives for open-source involvement by creating restrictive intellectual property (IP) assignment contracts that require developers to give up all rights to the code they produce.
  • non-profit organization cannot sell shares
  •  Given this predicament, what are we to do to ensure that the organization is accountable to the activists it serves and can mobilize developers to contribute in an open-source manner to the project?  One possibility is the cooperative, a business organization owned and controlled democratically by its members for mutual benefit.
  • when correctly designed and executed
  • The developers can transfer their IP rights to the cooperative, knowing that such rights will not be exploited for financial gain without them.
  • Kurt Laitner on 02 Dec 11
     
    excellent article on how to build the next generation of infrastructure and what some key themes are.
Kurt Laitner

Group:GNU Social/Project Comparison - LibrePlanet - 2 views

groups.fsf.org/...Project_Comparison

RoundUp

shared by Kurt Laitner on 08 Jun 10 - Cached
  • Kurt Laitner on 08 Jun 10
     
    round up of socnet approaches, courtesy link by michael j p
  • François Dongier on 08 Jun 10
     
    Very nice. Now this is done by the FSF (Free software foundation) and all projects listed here are freeware (as opposed to both open-source and commercial ware). The group behind it (http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/Group:GNU_Social) has nice goals: "GNU social, true to the Unix-philosophy of small programs to do a small job, will be a decentralized social network that you can install on your own server. What if you could authorize your server to reveal as much, or as little information about you to other sites, as you wish... one time, one day, or forever?" "But you'll never beat Facebook, so why bother? Maybe everyone in the world won't use this, but not everyone uses Facebook either. Privacy is important, and lots of people value their privacy as well as their freedom to ensure the software they're using isn't doing things they don't want." "It is still in open discussion on the mailing list, if it makes sense to have this technology server-based or rather, for reasons of privacy, based on the user's computer. The current consensus seems to be, that there is a need for something quick that will federate existing server-based social community servers, yet at the same time we should maintain a long-term look on how to provide peer-to-peer privacy." See also: http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/Group:GNU_Social/Ideas
Kurt Laitner

Blaine Cook Introduces Us To Webfinger | socialmedia.net - Navigating New Horizons - 0 views

socialmedia.net/...ook-introduces-us-to-webfinger

Diaspora webfinger

shared by Kurt Laitner on 19 Sep 10 - No Cached
  • Kurt Laitner on 19 Sep 10
     
    Another way to own your data? Certainly talks up the position but not sure how stable web urls for identities are sufficient - ther may be more to this but it is good to see the meme getting traction - love the share cropping analogy - also love the "Facebook is like a wedding from hell .. You've got your mom sitting next to your boss and you wife beside your ex girlfriend"
Kurt Laitner

Attacked from Within || kuro5hin.org - 0 views

www.kuro5hin.org/...3000

*identity anonymity community society behavior moderation *trust

shared by Kurt Laitner on 14 Oct 10 - Cached
  • German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies first investigated the difference between 'community' and 'society' (respectively, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft). Small groups can exist in a sense of organic community, not requiring formal rules because a sense of common mores or norms unite them. Personal relationships can be cultivated and are quite strong, and there is little need for external enforcement. John Allen's quaint description of early Usenet illustrates Tönnies' idea of community. Larger groups find community hard to sustain. Individual interest rules behavior rather than common mores. Society, as opposed to community, is based on explicit rules that require enforcement. Society possesses greater flexibility and potentially more capability, but individuals are subject to greater anomie and anti-social behavior. Internal factional conflicts occur more frequently, despite the greater modularity of individuals' function in society.
  • Society scales easily because users are interchangeable, community scales with difficulty because relationships and identity are not interchangeable.
  • we run into two opposing conceptions of identity: persistent identity and anonymity.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The political science terms for what Shirky is trying to say are 'asset specificity' and 'selective incentives.' Users need to earn non-portable assets on an individual basis as a reward for constructive contributions to the community.
  • Dupe accounts, much like the shady accounting practices that allowed Enron to shift all its losses onto the balance sheets of fictive subsidiary corporations, allow the user's principal account to retain any specific incentives for constructive behavior while shifting all of the negative moderation and other penalties off onto the dupes.
  • Kurt Laitner on 14 Oct 10
     
    Some absolutely brilliant bits in here - especially ambient communities, I riff off of this that everyone starts anon themselves and to everyone else, interaction quality causes the 'other identity' to begin to crystallize and be symbolically represented, and that this 'other' need not be mapped to a natural person, this gets really very very interesting at this point so I go away and think - wildcat, your thoughts?
Wildcat2030 wildcat

Building Web Reputation Systems: The Blog: On Karma: Top-line Lessons on User Reputatio... - 2 views

buildingreputation.com/...on_karma.html

social objects Network socnet

shared by Wildcat2030 wildcat on 18 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Wildcat2030 wildcat on 18 Feb 10
     
    "On Karma: Top-line Lessons on User Reputation Design In Building Web Reputation Systems, we appropriate the term karma to mean a user reputation in an online service. As you might expect, karma is discussed heavily throughout the more than 300 pages. During the final editing process, it became clear that a simple summary of the main points would be helpful to those looking for guidance. It seemed that our first post in over a month (congratulations on the new delivery, Bryce!) should be something big and useful... This post covers the following top-line points about designing karma systems, drawn from our book and other blog posts: * Karma is user reputation within a context * Karma is useful for building trust between users, and between a user and the site * Karma can be an incentive for participation and contributions * Karma is contextual and has limited utility globally. [A chessmaster is not a good eBay Seller] * Karma comes in several flavors - Participation, Quality and Robust (combined) * Karma should be complex and the result of indirect evaluations, and the formulation is often opaque * Personal karma is displayed only to the owner, and is good for measuring progress * Corporate karma is used by the site operator to find the very best and very worst users * Public karma is displayed to other users, which is what makes it the hardest to get right * Public karma should be used sparingly - it is hard to understand, isn't expected, and is easily confused with content ratings * Negative public karma should be avoided all together. In karma-math -1 is not the same magnitude as +1, and information loss is too expensive. * Public karma often encourages competitive behavior in users, which may not be compatible with their motivations. This is most easily seen with leaderboards, but can happen any time karma scores are prominently displayed. [i.e.: Twitter follower count] "
fishead ...•∞º˙

50 group limit - 15 views

the tool should not require me to stand on my head to think.. but that may be a temporary solution, time to experiment with multiple personality disorder, I fear I may enjoy it too much

started by Kurt Laitner on 18 Feb 10 9 follow-ups, last by fishead ...•∞º˙ on 22 Feb 10
Jack Logan

In Search of the People Formerly Known as The Audience | Blog | design mind - 1 views

designmind.frogdesign.com/...rly-known-as-the-audience.html

shared by Jack Logan on 13 Jan 10 - Cached
  • Jack Logan on 13 Jan 10
     
    Click on the "Download the pdf" on this page to see this interesting study of the socnets of the day and don't do. How to find an audience ...
Jack Logan

apophenia: Facebook's move ain't about changes in privacy norms - 17 views

www.zephoria.org/...facebooks_move.html

shared by Jack Logan on 17 Jan 10 - Cached
  • When I learned that Mark Zuckerberg effectively argued that 'the age of privacy is over' (read: ReadWriteWeb), I wanted to scream. Actually, I did. And still am. The logic goes something like this: People I knew didn't used to like to be public. Now "everyone" is being public. Ergo, privacy is dead. This isn't new. This is the exact same logic that made me want to scream a decade ago when folks used David Brin to justify a transparent society. Privacy is dead, get over it. Right? Wrong!
  • Jack Logan on 17 Jan 10
     
    Ouch, David Brin ...
  • ...5 more comments...
  • Kurt Laitner on 17 Jan 10
     
    zucherberg's position cannot be taken seriously, it is too self serving
  • Jack Logan on 17 Jan 10
     
    David Brin has it right, if right means that we'll all have to give up a great deal more of our privacy - Internet, planes, personal ID (openID), credit cards, et al., - can you think of an area of life that has become more private in the last 10 years?
  • Kurt Laitner on 17 Jan 10
     
    I think the key here is that we cannot believe that this is acceptable or inevitable. 9/11 allowed the US government to remove freedoms with the consent of the population based on their fear. "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither" (forget the source of that quote, don't feel like looking it up, shouldn't a bot do that for me as soon as I put quotes in?) While I doubt they are this sophisticated, if the militant theocracies who control their populations wanted to destroy the freedoms americans had and make the US more like themselves, they have been winning this war with our consent. There are powerful forces destroying our privacy and freedom. It is time to wake up before the frog gets boiled. Sorry gotta go, black helicopter landing in backyard
  • Jack Logan on 18 Jan 10
     
    LOLROF! There's a black helicopter landing in my backyard too! LOL
  • frank smith on 20 Jan 10
     
    you guys may want to take another look at Brin. I believe his observation is that privacy is going away (has actually been gone for a while). the question he poses is who will have access and control of the surveillance systems. he is advocating that we ALL do rather than centrally controlled organizations.
  • Kurt Laitner on 20 Jan 10
     
    his book is on my shelf, my wife started reading it but stopped as she found it too depressing - it will likely be right up my alley - if we accepted the premise that we would be in a surveilled state then it would be enormously helpful that it was a commons- I do not accept that we should allow this surveilled state to happen, nor that we should accept it as good, even if it is a commons. I also don't believe that it will be a commons. It should not exist, and should be fought every step of the way by people whose minds have not opened so far that their brains have fallen out. It is completely possible with technology to give individuals the power to set levels of privacy to particular counter parties. It is politically possible to regulate the use of surveillance. One can make the argument that people can simply surveil with their camera phones, but you do not see that happening as it would be culturally unacceptable (rude if you will). I find the acceptance of big brother as inevitable troubling.
  • anonymous on 20 Jan 10
     
    David Brin used well thought out logic to make his argument. Zuckerburg is an idiot. He's the face of 1984's Big Brother, except at puberty.
Jack Logan

The Web is finally starting to behave like a butler - PARC blog - 0 views

blogs.parc.com/...arting-to-behave-like-a-butler

web human butler internet

shared by Jack Logan on 20 Jan 10 - Cached
  • Jack Logan on 20 Jan 10
     
    Interesting ...
Jack Logan

Nine Ways to Build Your Own Social Network - 0 views

www.techcrunch.com/...-build-your-own-social-network

social network socnet

shared by Jack Logan on 19 Jan 10 - Cached
  • Jack Logan on 19 Jan 10
     
    Did I miss this one in the group?
1 - 20 of 45 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page