[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Social-discuss] Comments: GNU social relationship manager

From: Ted Smith
Subject: Re: [Social-discuss] Comments: GNU social relationship manager
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:16:21 -0400

On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 00:39 -0400, Matt Lee wrote:
> # GNU social: relationships manager
> ## Functional Specification
> Matt Lee
> Last Updated: June 22nd, 2010
> ### Non Goals
> The relationship manager does not expect to fix the following scenarios:
> * Privacy of posted URLs to content -- once something has been posted,
>   its URL can be shared or the photo/video downloaded and reuploaded
>   elsewhere.
Interesting. Diaspora makes the URL secure with OpenPGP - it seems like
a major loss to not have *any* protection on that level. It's hard to
say we care about privacy more than Facebook when we don't offer
comparable protection of user data.

> ## Screen by Screen Specification
> The relationship manager for GNU social consists of just two different
> screens.
> On the first screen, contacts are listed both individually, or as a
> list of groups. Clicking a contact or group goes to the second screen,
> whereas selecting multiple contacts prompts for the creation of a new
> group, as well as allowing the user to add the selected contacts into
> a group. For the sake of simplicity, contacts can belong only in one
> group.

Why limit contacts to only one group? It doesn't seem to be that much
harder to compose groups of other groups (making them more like tags) -
it would still be simple to implement and it would allow for more

What about the case where I want a policy that's subtractive - I want
everyone in my family BUT my brother to see something, or I want
everyone at work EXCEPT my boss to see some comment, or I want my work
friends and my activist friends to see something but I don't want anyone
in my family to see something? These could be set in the privacy policy
on a given item (if that's possible), but they require something like
tags, and we might as well be consistent.

The second scenario would be a very good motivation for subtractive
privacy policies.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]