One perspective, if not yet shared here: https://theconversation.com/the-internets-founder-now-wants-to-fix-the-web-but-his-proposal-misses-the-mark-127793 ________________________________ From: LT <[email protected]> on behalf of Urban Martin <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2019 12:35 PM To: Thomas Delrue <[email protected]> Cc: LT <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Web Inventor Releases Ambitious Plan to Take Back Net
Curious to hear what others think, but I assumed it was related to social contract theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 12:19 PM Thomas Delrue <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 11/24/19 10:31 PM, Yosem Companys wrote: > The contract is non-binding, however. And funders and partners in the > endeavor include Google and Facebook, whose data-collecting business > models and sensation-rewarding algorithms have been blamed for > exacerbating online toxicity. I'm a little confused by the choice of words in the term "contract for the web"... Can someone explain to me what exactly a non-binding contract is? The first 7 words of the Wikipedia entry for 'contract' are literally "A contract is a legally binding agreement". How can a 'legally binding agreement' be non-binding? MW has as its first entry for 'contract' the following "a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties especially : one legally enforceable". Forgive my cynicism, but what exactly will this do or accomplish if it isn't binding, except to make some folks feel warm and fuzzy for signing something that will be forgotten in a heartbeat? Surely, this is nothing more than a PR stunt? It's about as vacuous as the statement "Don't be evil" (by google) or "We care about your privacy" (by facebook), no? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that TBL has started this conversation, as it is one to be had. However, without the binding-ness, the good intentions and desires, outlined in the 'contract', will go no-where. Unfortunately, we don't need more conversation on this subject, we need actual change, and that requires enforceability. If the purpose of making it non-enforceable was to make sure entities like google or facebook signed as well, then I ask "why? Why do they have to sign as well"? Especially if they are the highest probability candidates to violate the intention of the document. Why would it have been important for them to sign something that will make no difference? Why not leave them excluded and let them be on display for the predatory entities that they are? -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing [email protected].
