On 6 Apr 2010, at 10:53, Rob Myers wrote: > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:05:32 -0400, Ian Denhardt <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Here's the problem I see with this: I'm running a gnu social instance on > >> my own server, quite literally a PC sitting under my bed. How do you >> justify saying I can't make your name, as it appears on my website, >> running on my hardware, a link to anywhere I please? Supposing I don't >> have an instance of GNU Social, I just have a website. should I not be >> allowed to manually link to various people, who may or may not want me >> to do so? It's possible it would be impolite of me, but ultimately >> there's a free speech issue there. >> >> I'm not arguing privacy isn't important, but there's a conflict. >> Certainly we need access controls so that I can control who can access >> what on my profile, But it feels a bit draconian for you to be able to >> have access controls that determine what I can post on my website. I >> don't think I would run the software at all if it allowed for this, or >> since it is free software, I would simply remove the functionality. > > Certainly everyone should control their own computing resources and their > own running software. This is a free software project. And people will > simply modify the software to work around any restrictions we might be > tempted to add. > > But we do need to recognise this conflict and do what we can in the > software to address it. > > > Possible solutions: > > 1. Have "anti-tags" that the software respects by default. Or would that > end up being a source of hilarity like Outlook message recall emails to > mailing lists? They would making searching for embarrassments easier than > simply leaving the original tag unchallenged. > > 2. Allow people to ignore tags from other instances on their instance, and > to not propagate those tags to other instances. > > 3. Require that tags are confirmed, and simply leave tags unconfirmed on > the other instance if the tagged user declines to confirm them. This avoids > the embarrassment flagging problem of 1.
Yes, this is a bit the way foaf:knows works. You can claim you foaf:know anyone. This does not require them to link back. For a third party an unconfirmed foaf:knows will have less weight (since people can claim they know anyone). > > - Rob. > >
