On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 08:04 -0400, Rob Myers wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:29:37 +0200 (CEST), Carlo von Loesch > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Matt Lee typeth: > > | This is also why I think something in a browser would be more > > | understandable by a typical user. > > > > A user also understands a Skype client or a bittorrent plugin. > > Maybe he even understands a Jabber client. > > > > The choice of tools is not limited by mental capacities yet. > > The question is how much are you intending to through encryption, > > thus privacy, out of the window. > > We're not.
Are you saying that as Rob Myers, individual, or as Rob Myers, Agent of FooCorp? If the latter, what has changed between now and: On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:55 -0500, Matt Lee wrote: > Should GNU social be a straight up replacement for existing social > networks? I don't think so. > > Should GNU social include the creation of a protocol for decentralized, > encrypted communication between social networks? I think it should. > > Not wishing to disappoint, but I think the idea of making a straight up > clone of Facebook that is AGPL isn't what we should be thinking about > here. We may decide to create a simple, Facebook-type UI as a demo for > one of the possible applications of GNU social, but let's also consider > the future and other ideas for social software. It was my understanding since this message that GNU Social was to demonstrate a commitment to privacy above and beyond what a facebook clone would have. Has that changed? If so, how and why?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
