muesli
If I didn't have to recreate my entire social graph in every single network, lots of small and tailored services were not only a lot more feasible to use, but also to build.
I should be able to create and manage that social graph locally, then bring it with me when signing in to services. You could define which service gets to see which parts of your profile and graph, or even maintain multiple personas (work vs private etc).
Daniel Schildt
@fribbledom There's have been a lot of talk about similar identity portability ideas in the past ~10 years. Part of the technical problems are solved, but there are various clear data privacy problems as full data portability presents new issues for the privacy of others. Reidentification of other people can cause legal challenges with GDPR etc.
muesli
I think those parts are solved as well. Think about how Signal identifies two contacts connected to each other without the server being able to identify people on your contact list.
Daniel Schildt
@fribbledom Looking at the consumer documentation https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007061452-Does-Signal-send-my-number-to-my-contacts- there seems to be various problems with the approach. Signal checks existence of phone numbers from the centralised database, even while the notifications itself are generated locally. There doesn't seem to be a way to prevent others from getting notification. Essentially they are data processor.
muesli
Did you read the second paragraph? If anything this empowers you to be more granular and specific what information you share with services.
Felix
@fribbledom Do not want. I'm not the same person on every social network. I don't have the same friends and don't share the same details about myself.
muesli
That part is solved. Contacts can discover each other without your contact list being shared with the server. Think Signal.
FiXato
@fribbledom since quite some services already support looking for contacts by giving them access to your contacts list, I guess that could be a starting point.
The trouble is that I don't want to give anything full access to my contacts, so what we'd need is a way to indicate which fields you want to give them access to, and prefilter that list based on a key field with multi-value support (e.g. an audience/circles key with values such as 'work', 'family', 'offline contacts').
But based on the reaction of quite some people to Circles in G+ and Aspects in Diaspora*, I fear that the concept will be deemed too complex to gain mainstream traction.
I guess it's in part what #TimBernersLee is trying to solve with the #SOLID project (https://solidproject.org/).
muesli
That's a solved problem. Contacts can discover each other without sharing any contact list with a server.
Felix
@fribbledom I can do that better by starting from scratch on each service. Circles looked like a great idea too, until I realized it tells those with access to my data who my friends, colleagues and so on are.
Felix
@fribbledom Via phone numbers, that can be trivially compromised? Okay, fine. You do that.
muesli
Any token would work. But I see you have very strong preconceptions, which may indeed be a bigger problem. If you first need to educate people, chances are that concept is doomed.
muesli
A solved problem, see thread.
Zack
@fribbledom sounds a lot like those apps that ask for access to your contacts, seems like it could be a privacy risk
Bobinas P4G is a social network. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.1-beta0, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Bobinas P4G content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.