[resu_nimda]

> What we need are tools that allow us to connect in ways that are difficult not only to detect but also to make sense of (not necessarily encryption, but an ad-hoc format that can't be easily parsed and aggregated).

Which would also make it much more difficult to use and less useful. We've organized our info this way because we like it and it makes sense, it's no surprise that it's useful to the government as well. In other words, I think the value to us and the value to them are very tightly coupled.

And the thing is, outside of the hardcore techie bubble, most people don't care. So what if the government can see their friends and pictures, even track them to some degree? Why should they care? They're not going to migrate to some convoluted unstructured system just for the abstract and esoteric benefit of privacy.

[jeremy6d]

> Which would also make it much more difficult to use and less useful.

Maybe. As somebody who's worked in content management system design for a great deal of his career, I'm not at all convinced that the ongoing enclosure of information into systems of formatting serves people. Instead, what you find is people jumping through hoops to fit their information into the format chosen by others. Paul Goodman critiqued the tyranny of format 50 years ago, and Douglas Rushkoff authored the natural extension of this critique in his seminal "Program or Be Programmed". The promise of the internet has to be more than giving people text boxes, or I give up. :)

> We've organized our info this way because we like it and it makes sense, it's no surprise that it's useful to the government as well.

Really? The users of FB have decided that this is the way they'd like to organize their information? Surprising. I never recall in my use of FB being given the ability to structure the format as I and my friends see fit. I must have missed something.

In all seriousness, I think we need to look very carefully at this coupling of value you speak of. There are almost certainly areas where the format chosen by an authority (a corporation, a government, any institution really) is that that free individuals would choose. But not every area, and as the information gets more personal, the format becomes more restrictive. I'm not sure where the line between sharing on one's own terms and another's terms gets crossed, but any network that can aggregate detailed information about BILLIONS of people has certainly crossed it. The question is simply whether or not we should be content with this situation.

[resu_nimda]

> The users of FB have decided that this is the way they'd like to organize their information?

In aggregate, by choosing to use Facebook, and by providing feedback and usage data that shapes how it changes. I realize that there is a certain stickyness and network effect at play, but at some level we have chosen this platform and format, and many (most?) are content with it.

I can't really wrap my head around a useful replacement that has no enforced formatting/is difficult to aggregate and parse. If you have any more concrete ideas or examples I would be interested.

[jeremy6d]

>> The users of FB have decided that this is the way they'd like to organize their information?

>In aggregate, by choosing to use Facebook, and by providing feedback and usage data that shapes how it changes.

I simply draw a different conclusion from that than you do. At some level we have chosen it, yes. I'm not denying that, but instead trying to figure out whether that level is necessary. I appreciate the pushback!

[jeremy6d]

A CMS is essentially a collection of keys and values. The format prescribes the keys, and the user fills in the values.

All I'm suggesting is that we design the keys ourselves. If that makes communication more difficult, perhaps it's also true that not all communication needs to be universally legible.

[foobarqux]

A Freedombox-style approach wouldn't be substantially more difficult to use or substantially less useful. It is more difficult to build, however.