@Steven: Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. I appreciate long posts, if you haven’t figured that out. I also appreciate the tone of your reply.
I appreciate that you are willing to exhibit patience and to explain things that may not be clear to someone who isn’t a coder. Your explanation will be helpful for others who wish to better understand the nature of the beast when discussing TOS/PP on a network like D*. That is what I’m trying to kickstart here in this forum at Loom.
I realize that I am naive about licenses and all that, but I’m not sure the point of taking the fifth amendment when it comes to posting (or not posting) a TOS/PP. I don’t understand why Diaspora will not encourage a TOS/PP and recommend a boilerplate.
We agree that these cannot be policed.
Still… by not having one, it is a breech of trust. I don’t see any way around it. I’m sorry I was confused by your reference of your plugin. What does it do exactly?
Also why must a pod have to federate? Who decides that? Aren’t there private pods? If a pod must federate or risk being in breech of the license then why not ask that all podmins have a TOS/PP (of their choosing) and have it clearly posted in simple direct language? What is the difference?
Really, I am not about controlling the content, per se. I hope that is understood by everyone here. What I am for is full disclosure about using the Diaspora tools. (I see the entire platform as a tool, btw, even though I’m aware there are a series of tools evident and possible under the umbrella of the platform).
Users should understand things like the tool is not fully private, but semi private. Users should be extremely clear what it means to make a public post and what happens to their content and how their content may be vulnerable. IF it should happen that there is a breech of content or privacy BECAUSE of conflicting pod policies, I’d proffer that it should be the mandate of the D* Fo to wade in and deliberate that.
The reason for doing this has to do with taking a stand for the importance, value, and respect for the privacy of others.
Up to now I haven’t seen an attitude of sensitivity for the privacy of others. Quite the opposite. The attitude is very hands off. The explanation is that “it is technologically impossible to block that from happening.”
That is what good policies are meant to do. To promote good will, not to foster bad will. Waiting around until someone is humiliated and takes legal action or something far worse, like political or physical harm is really reckless in my opinion.
I think the only way to come to a possible solution is to have these conversations we are having. The answer will emerge from discussing it. But to think there is a silver bullet solution is wrongheaded. I’m not advocating silver bullets and I never have.
Thanks again for the chat!