On Friday 14 May 2010, Sean Phelan wrote: > Chris, > > > Hold it -- think about this. If that was done, it would DEFEAT > > the entire point of the project, because it wouldn't fix ANY > > privacy issues, since the data would be copied to the services > > that have the privacy issues. > > The reason this is important is because it makes the transition > smooth and gradual. Start running your own node, but everyone > else is still using FB, so you talk to them there. Over time, > more people start running their own nodes, and if 2 friends both > have their own nodes, they don't bother with FB for each other.
So in other words, if I'm concerned about privacy on FB and thus I'm not on it, and the new thing is set up to solve the privacy problem but then interacts with FB, then any reason I'd have to join the new thing to interact but still have privacy is out the window. > If it's just another social network in a vacuum, it's useless - > social networks are only valuable because there are other people > in them. It's not really about the technology, but the community. > Same with community sites, BBoards, etc.. So in other words, "we have to keep the status quo because that's what everybody else uses." What problem gets solved this way again? -- Chris Knadle [email protected] _______________________________________________ Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium Jun 2 - Android Jul 7 - Patent Absurdity - The Movie Aug 4 - Samba
