The uncensored, free speech social media platform known as Minds.com has adopted a bill of rights. Minds is an alternative site to Google+ that provides a similar experience but is open source. Developers are working on adding features. Your real name is not required to open a Minds account. Only an email address is required.
Minds is officially adopting the Manila Principles On Intermediary Liability, a digital bill of rights, outlined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other leading digital rights organizations. The principles have been endorsed by nearly 300 leading press freedom and technology policy organizations and individuals. They act as a guideline for protecting freedom of expression and create an open environment for innovation. It is our hope to create a network effect of companies and organizations adopting the principles to further Internet freedom globally.
The Manila Principles On Intermediary Liability
1. Intermediaries should be shielded from liability for third-party content.
2. Content must NOT be required to be removed without an order by a judicial authority.
3. Requests for restrictions of content must be clear, be unambiguous, and follow due process.
4. Laws and content restriction orders and practices must comply with the tests of necessity and proportionality.
5. Laws and content restriction policies and practices must respect due process.
6. Transparency and accountability must be built into laws and content restriction policies and practices.
Please visit manilaprinciples.org for more information on each principle.
https://www.minds.com/p/billofrights
#Minds #SocialMedia #GooglePlusMigration #GooglePlus #MindsBillofRights
https://www.minds.com/p/billofrights
Minds is officially adopting the Manila Principles On Intermediary Liability, a digital bill of rights, outlined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other leading digital rights organizations. The principles have been endorsed by nearly 300 leading press freedom and technology policy organizations and individuals. They act as a guideline for protecting freedom of expression and create an open environment for innovation. It is our hope to create a network effect of companies and organizations adopting the principles to further Internet freedom globally.
The Manila Principles On Intermediary Liability
1. Intermediaries should be shielded from liability for third-party content.
2. Content must NOT be required to be removed without an order by a judicial authority.
3. Requests for restrictions of content must be clear, be unambiguous, and follow due process.
4. Laws and content restriction orders and practices must comply with the tests of necessity and proportionality.
5. Laws and content restriction policies and practices must respect due process.
6. Transparency and accountability must be built into laws and content restriction policies and practices.
Please visit manilaprinciples.org for more information on each principle.
https://www.minds.com/p/billofrights
#Minds #SocialMedia #GooglePlusMigration #GooglePlus #MindsBillofRights
https://www.minds.com/p/billofrights
Does this limit ability of group or community moderators to remove or delist content?
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius I am going to give you two answers, Edward. First, please review this site for further details on the principles above: https://www.manilaprinciples.org/
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I found this Quora post about Minds as of 2017 that addresses Minds' channels, blocking, groups and network (if you want just scroll down to the groups section):
Challenges with Minds "Channel"
• The Minds "Channel" is like the Facebook "Wall" or Diaspora* "Wall", or like your profile page with other tools. All content you post to your Minds Channel is public. If needed there is an handy "Mature" option. To blur those content for under age users. For the viewing permissions Facebook and Diaspora* are able to do more fined-grained permissions per user or per group of users. Put if you need all your Channel content to be public than Minds Channel is great.
• Because all your content on your Channel is public that means any users is able to view and interact with your Channel content, vote up or down or comment. You are able to block other users from interacting with you. But you need to block them one by one. That might be challenging and time consuming if your need to block a large number of users. I found the Facebook and Diaspora* block method is much easier, you review for your approval your friend invite requests. After that if you approved, only your Facebook friends are able to view your Facebook "Wall" or Diaspora* "Wall". In other words, on your Minds Channel if you need to keep some content private from specific users you can not do that yet. As the permissions are not yet fine-grained per user.
Challenges with Minds "Block"
• When you block another Minds users, using the Block feature located on their Channel page, it stops them from interacting with you, and they can not comment on your content. But it does not prevent those blocked users from viewing your Channel public content, or voting up or down your content. But you can not see their votes.
It's easy to navigate to a user's channel by clicking on their avatar in the upper left hand corner of any of their posts. You block them by going to their channel and clicking on the gear wheel to the right of the Subscribers button. There is no mute yet.
Challenges with Minds "Groups"
• Minds "Groups" are similar to Facebook "Groups" or Diaspora* "Groups". If you create a Minds Group. Anyone is able to join your Group. The Group administrator(s) is called "Admin"(s). Unfortunately the Group Admin(s) are not yet able to review for approval the requests to join that Group.
• The risk is that your Minds Group could easily become overrun by robot spammer, or users with immature behaviors such as trolls. For example they could post large amount of inappropriate content to monetize or bully other members.
• The Group Admin(s) are able to either block or permanently block those immature users. But you need to do that one by one, so that might be challenging and time consuming with large amount of immature users. It's easy to navigate to a user's channel by clicking on their avatar in the upper left hand corner of any of their posts. You block them by going to their channel and clicking on the gear wheel to the right of the Subscribers button. There is no mute yet.
• Minds Group might be a good match if you enjoy letting your Group members be self-organized with filtering in or out other members. Speaking for myself, as Group Admin, I suggested to my Group members if they feel offended by another member, to express that to the other member. He/She might or not choose to take into consideration their feelings and potentially adapt her/his behaviors accordingly when appropriate. But if healthy two-way communications failed and the Group member still feel offended by the other member, I suggested for them to consider blocking that other member. As a result the other member would no longer be able to interact with them.
ReplyDeleteChallenges with Minds network
• As you know Minds software is available in either decentralized or centralized options. Meaning its source code is available publicly for reviews and contributions. But is Minds software presently able to be both distributed and federated? I searched but I have not yet found a clear answer to that question. My instinct tells me the future is with those two combined network methods.
quora.com - Is Minds.com a viable, alternative, social media, as of 2017?
What's their policy on hate speech? It's a serious issue now considering what happened to GAB.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem after the shooting and GAB is that it's find and dandy to debate ideology or even air grievances about government. But with no crystal clear policy on "hate speech", ah, the GAB situation will happen again.
People want an G+ alternative that will remain online, not in 2 years after settling in, the host shuts down the site.
Kevyne Kicklighter Any social media site is a service just like our phone service at T-Mobile or Verizon. A social media site is not responsible for the actions of its users. As I said before, if a bomber used a Verizon phone service to call in a bomb threat to a school, the police don't shut down Verizon because Verizon is just a service. Police arrest the bomber.
ReplyDeleteThe Minds policy on hate speech is block and delete. It's a free speech and privacy social media service site. There's no censorship. Users control what content they see via block and delete. Minds is actively working to remove all dependency on service providers so what happened to GAB doesn't happen to Minds...see the last paragraph below.
From the link below: One of the questions for Bill Ottman, the Co-Founder and CEO of Minds: Do you have any advice to share with other entrepreneurs with regards to growing a brand or business?
Build something that puts equal attention into your philosophy and principles (eg transparency, privacy, free speech) while simultaneously hitting the human nature nerve (eg. incentives rewards, viral reach).
Keep the branding clean and open for evolution. We have made a few small pivots and that wouldn’t be possible without a brand/domain that was too limited in language.
===> Control your tools. Use as much open source software as possible and don’t cave to the convenience temptation for aspects of the product that matter. For instance, everyone who used Facebook login on their apps just decimated their user’s privacy in the recent hack of 50m accounts. Reliance on major tech companies for your infrastructure is high-risk.
October 30, 2018
masur.com - Bill Ottman, Co-Founder & CEO of Minds Talks About Transparent, Private and Decentralized Social Media on Blockchain - MASUR GRIFFITTS + LLP
Kathie Gifford A social media site is not responsible for the actions of its users.
ReplyDeleteThat is a statement of values, possibly backed up to a limited extent by statutory or case law.
In practice it is abjectly false as this week's experience of Gab illustrates, as do long-standing tensions over Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and Google, as well as historical precedents dating back to Craigslist, 1990s mailing lists, and even earlier Usenet, BBS, and The Well episodes.
Legally, socially, financially, technically, and morally, as well as on an ongoing functional basis, social networks are accountable for the real or percieved activities of their users.
Rhetorical dodges don't change this.
Phone and mail services have a long-standing history of and obligation to assist in criminal, and civil, investigations. As point-to-point rather than multicast / broadcast networks, their social impacts are limited. Significant regulation against broadcast-type use is also in effect (junk faxes, telemarketers, robocalls).
(I've cued up your references to read, but wanted to address your comment directly.)
Kathie Gifford GAB showed, as well as GoDaddy and The Daily Stormer, that social media hosts do have responsibility with the content they host.
ReplyDeleteThe internet's bandwidth providers ("upstream") have clear TOS/EULA agreements that all data centers and hosts have to obey (they'll literally cut off the pipe(s) to them when they host criminal content). That's how/why Pirate Bay and others like them get cut off from the internet (the upstream provider(s) don't want to be sued for breaking laws).
So hosts can talk all about their "free speech" of their networks, but they really have two choices: obey the upstream TOS/EULA regulations or bug out (they'll order them to move their hardware out of the data center, too). GAB got the cold cut, and any other host that takes them up, will face the same predicament. Hosts RENT rack space and buy bandwidth, yet if one bad apple wrecks the upstream, the upstream will kicked right onto the curb.
This is the main reason I stayed with G+ because Google owns its own bandwidth itself (they provide a bandwidth pipe for their enterprise and host their own equipment in their own data center*s* pipe-to-pipe. They don't rent from third parties and make their own rules), they are a broadcast network itself like Comcast.
Every other host out there be it MINDS/MeWe/Fediverse, etc, they're mid-tier providers. They can buy/build a data center, but they don't own their own bandwidth (need serious capital to own their own network, something mid-tier operators don't have).
G+ was really a nice social network because one entity owned it all, the buck stopped at Google's desk.
Everyone else are dependent on their bandwidth to even broadcast.
google.com - Data Centers – Google