#+title: Digital freedom
#&summary
A discussion about digital freedom in general.
#&
#+license: wtfpl
#+startup: showall

#&+classes=warning
This is a work in progress (more so than my other articles).
#&

* Concepts

(Currently mostly about social networking.)

I like to follow this rule: When I create something substantial which I want to
share, I host it myself. But why? Because I don't want to depend on something
which I cannot control or strongly influence.

A decentralized social network must be widespread for people to be able to share
private data with a select few, i.e. the select few must be used to using the
decentralized network.

The difficulty of leaving a service is determined by the complexity of the
social features of the service.

I only host my own works somewhere else than on my own host if I feel that I
have a social obligation to do so, or if it's a link that points out of the
service. I don't mind if what Facebook ends up being is the new digg.

The more difficult it is to leave a service, the more I feel I have a *social*
obligation to host my works on the service. However, the more difficult it is to
leave a service, the more I also feel that I have a *moral* obligation to /not/
host my works on the service.

I don't wish to host substantial works, even public ones, on e.g. Facebook. Not
because Facebook gets to know them (I have made sure I don't mind them being
public), but because I use a service which I don't like, and that may fuel the
use in general, especially for my friends. As such, it doesn't matter what I
publish on the service, it will no matter what (in varying degrees) accelerate
the use of the service, which I do not want to happen.

In general, it's a balance. I try not to make others depend on Facebook because
of me; I do that by not uploading large photo galleries to Facebook. However,
photo galleries on Facebook have quite complex features.


* Hardware freedom links (different views)

+ [[https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria]]
+ [[https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html]]
+ [[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html]]
+ [[http://projects.goldelico.com/p/gta04-main/page/FirmwareInjector/?rev=322]]
+ [[http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/08/the_four_freedoms_applied_to_h.html]]
+ [[http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/19/intel-drm-a-crippled.html]]
+ [[http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/pipermail/discussion/2010-January/001635.html]]
+ [[http://www.ofb.biz/safari/article/353.html]]
+ [[http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2006/12/8428.ars]]
+ [[http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20100614#feature]]
+ [[http://libreplanet.org/wiki/When_should_firmware_be_free]]
+ [[http://www.datamation.com/osrc/article.php/3787736/Proprietary-Firmware-and-the-Pursuit-of-a-Free-Kernel.htm]]
+ [[https://lwn.net/Articles/352555/]]
+ [[https://lwn.net/Articles/460654/]]
+ [[http://lists.goldelico.com/pipermail/gta04-owner/2011-October/000375.html]]
+ [[http://lists.goldelico.com/pipermail/gta04-owner/2011-September/000325.html]]

I think hardware design freedom is as important as software freedom because of
the same reasons I think free software is important.  The fact that modifying
hardware is much more difficult than modifying software is irrelevant as the
ability to do so it still useful, and as gaining the knowledge behind a design
is also still useful.