Commentary on the Declaration of Digital Independence

Everipedia's Larry Sanger proposes 9 principles for decentralized social media. By my count, 6 are satisfied by the Steem blockchain. Do you agree?

---

Introduction

One of the links in my recent article, Science and technology micro-summaries for June 29, 2019 was Larry Sanger's article, Declaration of Digital Independence. This article is noteworthy for at least two reasons. First, because Sanger is one of the co-founders of wikipedia, and the chief information officer for everipedia. And second, because it contains ideas that are immediately relevant to platforms that are built on the Steem blockchain.

The Declaration of Digital Independence (DDI) asserts that vast digital empires have been abusing humanity and it is, therefore, time for them to be replaced. It adds that people have inalienable rights to free speech, privacy, and security, and that these rights define how the data that we own may be used. And it also notes that people have been improperly induced by the vast digital empires into surrendering those rights.

In similar fashion to the American Declaration of Independence, the DDI goes on to enumerate a specific list of abuses, and it calls on people to protect our rights by replacing the social media silos with decentralized platforms. Among other complaints, some of the abuses that are claimed include failures of moderation, bans and shadowbans, divisive algorithms that highlight controversial content, marketing of private data, political and religious discrimination, collaboration with despotic states, and a failure to share revenue with the users who create the content that they monetize.

To remediate these abuses, Sanger proposes 9 Principles of Decentralized Social Networks. In this essay, I will discuss my perspective on how each of the nine principles pertains to platforms that are built on the Steem blockchain.

First, in synopsis, here they are:

Principles of Decentralized Social Networks

1. We free individuals should be able to publish our data freely, without having to answer to any corporation.
2. We declare that we legally own our own data; we possess both legal and moral rights to control our own data.
3. Posts that appear on social networks should be able to be served, like email and blogs, from many independent services that we individually control, rather than from databases that corporations exclusively control or from any central repository.
4. Just as no one has the right to eavesdrop on private conversations in homes without extraordinarily good reasons, so also the privacy rights of users must be preserved against criminal, corporate, and governmental monitoring; therefore, for private content, the protocols must support strong, end-to-end encryption and other good privacy practices.
5. As is the case with the Internet domain name system, lists of available user feeds should be restricted by technical standards and protocols only, never according to user identity or content.
6. Social media applications should make available data input by the user, at the user’s sole discretion, to be distributed by all other publishers according to common, global standards and protocols, just as are email and blogs, with no publisher being privileged by the network above another. Applications with idiosyncratic standards violate their users’ digital rights.
7. Accordingly, social media applications should aggregate posts from multiple, independent data sources as determined by the user, and in an order determined by the user’s preferences.
8. No corporation, or small group of corporations, should control the standards and protocols of decentralized networks, nor should there be a single brand, owner, proprietary software, or Internet location associated with them, as that would constitute centralization.
9. Users should expect to be able to participate in the new networks, and to enjoy the rights above enumerated, without special technical skills. They should have very easy-to-use control over privacy, both fine- and coarse-grained, with the most private messages encrypted automatically, and using tools for controlling feeds and search results that are easy for non-technical people to use.

And here is some commentary on how I think the Steem blockchain does at complying with those principles.

Principle 1: We free individuals should be able to publish our data freely, without having to answer to any corporation. - Compliant

For the most part, anyone with Internet access can publish anything they want to on the Steem blockchain without interference from any corporation.

There are two caveats, however. First, individual applications my impose restrictions on posting through their own platforms (for example, appics, which has some sort of registration process that I wasn't willing to go through, so I don't know much about it.) Second, obtaining a Steem account either takes a considerable amount of time - on the order of a week or two - or else it costs money (or resource credits).

Principle 2: We declare that we legally own our own data; we possess both legal and moral rights to control our own data. - Uncertain / probably non-compliant

In the legal sense, I suppose it is true that we retain ownership of the data that we put on the blockchain, but we have no real control over who accesses it or what they do with it.

The old rule still applies. Never put anything on the blockchain that you wouldn't want your mother to read on the front page of the New York Times.

Principle 3: Posts that appear on social networks should be able to be served, like email and blogs, from many independent services that we individually control, rather than from databases that corporations exclusively control or from any central repository. - Compliant

This can be seen in the multiple platforms that exist on the Steem blockchain, steemit.com, steempeak.com (my personal favorite), busy.org, palnet.io, and even steemmonsters.com (and many others).

It does seem that there is a tension between principles 2 and 3, though. I guess they're not quite contradictory, but there's some need for nuance there.

Principle 4: Just as no one has the right to eavesdrop on private conversations in homes without extraordinarily good reasons, so also the privacy rights of users must be preserved against criminal, corporate, and governmental monitoring; therefore, for private content, the protocols must support strong, end-to-end encryption and other good privacy practices. - Compliant, but disincentivized and little used (if at all).

It is possible to use end to end encryption on the Steem blockchain, but doing so would discourage people from upvoting, and might even incur downvotes. An application could use encryption to restrict visibility to a limited community, and permit upvotes just within the community. The permanence of the blockchain, however means that if the encryption key is ever revealed, the leak would be irreverisble.

Principle 5: As is the case with the Internet domain name system, lists of available user feeds should be restricted by technical standards and protocols only, never according to user identity or content. - Compliant

Not much to say about this. The blockchain is permanent. Individual applications may violate this principle, but the blockchain itself cannot. (barring collusion of 17 or so top witnesses)

Principle 6: Social media applications should make available data input by the user, at the user’s sole discretion, to be distributed by all other publishers according to common, global standards and protocols, just as are email and blogs, with no publisher being privileged by the network above another. Applications with idiosyncratic standards violate their users’ digital rights. - Compliant

To be honest, I'm not sure I totally understand this one, so feel free to provide clarifying comments. If I understand it, the DDI is saying that an application should share information with other applications instead of building "walled gardens". If so, then Steem's status here is the same as principle 5. Individual applications might build walled gardens through the use of encryption, but the blockchain itself plays nicely with others.

Again, there's some nuance required to walk the fence between this one and principle 2.

Principle 7: Accordingly, social media applications should aggregate posts from multiple, independent data sources as determined by the user, and in an order determined by the user’s preferences. - Compliant

It is possible for users to post in one app and view it from another. With the latest iteration of D.tube, if I understand it, we're even seeing a front-end that bridges two totally independent blockchains, and Steempeak now lets people narrow their view to their particular tribe of interest.

Principle 8: No corporation, or small group of corporations, should control the standards and protocols of decentralized networks, nor should there be a single brand, owner, proprietary software, or Internet location associated with them, as that would constitute centralization. - Non-compliant, but hopefully improving

In a practical sense, the Steem protocols are controlled by one corporation and a small number of witness voters. The Steem Proposal System (SPS) in hardfork 21 is intended to improve on that centralized control. It remains to be seen if hardfork 21 accomplishes its goals.

Principle 9: Users should expect to be able to participate in the new networks, and to enjoy the rights above enumerated, without special technical skills. They should have very easy-to-use control over privacy, both fine- and coarse-grained, with the most private messages encrypted automatically, and using tools for controlling feeds and search results that are easy for non-technical people to use. - Non-compliant

Where do I begin? Even just getting an account is an insurmountable challenge for many of the people that I've tried to recruit.

Also, there is very little capability for private communications, except to use encrypted transfer memos or to manually encrypt a post or comment - which is impossibly complex for the typical social media user. Voting power and percentages, reverse auctions and reward curves, and now the new complexity with steem-engine tokens and upcoming SMTs -- it's fun stuff for technical people, but overwhelming for the typical social media user.

Conclusion

By my count, then, Steem is compliant with 6 of 9 of the DDI's principles of decentralized social networks, and another one (principle 8) may be achievable in the not too distant future. I suspect that the last two (principles 2 and 9) will be harder to satisfy, if they turn out to be important priorities for Steemizens.

What are your thoughts? Do you think principles 2 and 9 are important for the Steem blockchain? Feel free to offer corrections, if you think I have misunderstood or miscategorized any of the principles.

I'm not a petition signer, but if you'd like to sign the DDI as a change.org petition, you can click through and sign it. Also, Sanger is calling for a social media strike on July 4 and July 5 to show that there is world-wide demand for the principles outlined above. You may wish to read that article and consider joining.

h/t Sharyl Attkisson

---

Thank you for your time and attention.

As a general rule, I up-vote comments that demonstrate "proof of reading".

---

Steve Palmer is an IT professional with three decades of professional experience in data communications and information systems. He holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics, a master's degree in computer science, and a master's degree in information systems and technology management. He has been awarded 3 US patents.

Steve is also a co-founder of the Steem's Best Classical Music Facebook page, and the @classical-music steemit curation account.

Follow in RSS: @remlaps, @remlaps-lite