W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > January 2015

RE: Distributed architecture and social justice / at risk individuals

From: Crawford, Mark <mark.crawford@sap.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:14:59 +0000
To: Ben Werdmüller <ben@withknown.com>
CC: Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>, Francesco Ariis <fa-ml@ariis.it>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AD6B9DB031274440A47291E20BF3A30B805244E6@USPHLEMB10C.global.corp.sap>
A simple web search will show where the vast majority of understanding of this term resides.

From: Ben Werdmüller [mailto:ben@withknown.com]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 12:23 PM
To: Crawford, Mark
Cc: Christopher Allan Webber; Francesco Ariis; public-socialweb@w3.org
Subject: Re: Distributed architecture and social justice / at risk individuals

I think social justice is a commonly understood term, whether you agree with its definition or not.

We're very concerned about these issues at Known, but I think a lot of them don't necessarily fall into the protocol design. Things like blocklists are implementation features of individual systems, and may even turn out to be features on which different systems compete. As an analogy, I think blockbots are not a million miles away from spam blacklists, and are totally cool in that respect - but those spam lists aren't a part of the core email protocol. Things like analyzing a third party user to determine whether they should be automatically blocked is a client feature.

Making these technologies easy is important. One good way to make that happen is to not be too strict about what kind of systems can interact with the protocols and formats that are agreed upon. In other words: don't be too prescriptive about platform. That leaves room for innovation, and for people to create new tools that make things like servers easier. For example, I'm willing to bet on living room servers as Internet speeds make this viable, but I'd argue that this shouldn't be part of what's decided in a group like this.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Crawford, Mark <mark.crawford@sap.com<mailto:mark.crawford@sap.com>> wrote:
Perhaps the subject should be changed so as not to confuse as Social Justice is a politically charged term that should probably be avoided:

Social Justice - "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society". Classically, "justice" (especially corrective justice or distributive justice) referred to ensuring that individuals both fulfilled their societal roles, and received what was due from society.

Best Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Allan Webber [mailto:cwebber@dustycloud.org<mailto:cwebber@dustycloud.org>]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 11:38 AM
To: Francesco Ariis
Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org<mailto:public-socialweb@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Distributed architecture and social justice / at risk individuals

Francesco Ariis writes:

> On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 05:11:05PM -0600, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>> I'm not proposing any thoughts of my own in this email... I think it's
>> best to let hers take center stage.  But I'm interested in peoples'
>> feedback on how we can make federated technologies more responsive to
>> these needs/concerns?
> Not federated, but p2p projects like twister [1] and the more
> comprehensive [2] gnunet plus some client side scripting should
> address most if not all the problems.
> [1] http://twister.net.co/

> [2] https://gnunet.org/

How so?

Ben Werdmuller
CEO & co-founder, Known
withknown.com<http://withknown.com> | werd.io<http://werd.io>
+1 (312) 488-9373

Known, Inc | 421 Bryant St | San Francisco, CA 94107
Received on Monday, 12 January 2015 18:15:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:14 UTC