Update content to focus on the important parts.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,153 +1,94 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Position Statements
|
||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
||||
weight: 60
|
||||
featureImageCaption: "Photo by <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/@nasa?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">NASA</a> on <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/photos/satellite-view-of-earths-surface-_SFJhRPzJHs?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Unsplash</a>"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation (CSTF) holds the following positions regarding technology, digital rights, and civil society. These statements represent our core beliefs and guide our work.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Digital Commons & Public Interest Technology
|
||||
|
||||
**Position: Some critical software must be developed outside of profit motives to serve the public interest.**
|
||||
|
||||
We believe that certain categories of software and digital infrastructure are too important to be driven primarily by commercial interests. Just as we recognize the need for public parks, libraries, and utilities, we need digital commons that are governed for public benefit rather than private gain.
|
||||
|
||||
Software that serves essential social functions—including communication platforms, identity systems, and information access tools—should be developed with public interest as the primary goal. When profit is the main driver, these systems inevitably prioritize engagement, data extraction, and lock-in over human well-being and community resilience.
|
||||
|
||||
This doesn't mean all software must be non-commercial, but rather that we need robust alternatives developed explicitly for public benefit. These alternatives often produce better results because they align with user needs rather than business imperatives.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Surveillance Advertising & Attention Exploitation
|
||||
|
||||
**Position: Surveillance-based advertising models are fundamentally harmful to individuals and society.**
|
||||
|
||||
We oppose business models that rely on ubiquitous tracking, psychological manipulation, and attention extraction. These approaches:
|
||||
|
||||
- Systematically violate privacy at scale
|
||||
- Create incentives for addiction-promoting design
|
||||
- Fund the development of increasingly manipulative technology
|
||||
- Distort information ecosystems toward engagement rather than accuracy
|
||||
- Convert human attention and behavior into corporate assets
|
||||
|
||||
Alternative funding mechanisms exist for digital services, including transparent subscriptions, community funding, public support, and contextual (non-surveillance) advertising. These approaches can support vibrant digital ecosystems without the harms of surveillance capitalism.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Censorship & Content Control
|
||||
|
||||
**Position: Content filtering and moderation should not be controlled by corporations or governments.**
|
||||
|
||||
We oppose centralized control over online expression, whether by commercial platforms or state authorities. When a few entities can determine what expression is allowed, both legitimate speech and vulnerable communities suffer.
|
||||
|
||||
Communities have diverse, contextual needs for content moderation that cannot be met through one-size-fits-all policies or algorithmic enforcement. True content governance requires:
|
||||
|
||||
- Community-determined standards
|
||||
- Transparent, contestable processes
|
||||
- Context sensitivity
|
||||
- Distributed rather than centralized authority
|
||||
|
||||
By building federated, community-governed platforms, we can enable effective content management without centralizing control over expression.
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Privacy & Personal Data
|
||||
|
||||
**Position: Privacy is a fundamental right that must be protected by design, not treated as an optional feature.**
|
||||
|
||||
We believe that everyone deserves meaningful control over their personal information. Current digital ecosystems systematically undermine privacy through:
|
||||
|
||||
- Surveillance-based business models
|
||||
- Hidden data collection and sharing
|
||||
- Complex, misleading consent mechanisms
|
||||
- Insecure design and implementation
|
||||
- Weak or absent legal protections
|
||||
|
||||
Privacy is not merely a personal preference but a necessary condition for freedoms of thought, association, and expression. Technology must be designed with privacy as a core requirement, not an afterthought.
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Infrastructure Concentration
|
||||
|
||||
**Position: Digital infrastructure should not be concentrated in the hands of a few corporations or governments.**
|
||||
|
||||
We oppose the extreme concentration of control over critical digital infrastructure. When a handful of companies control cloud services, social platforms, app stores, and network access, they gain unprecedented power over society.
|
||||
|
||||
This concentration:
|
||||
|
||||
- Creates single points of failure for essential services
|
||||
- Enables mass surveillance and data extraction
|
||||
- Undermines innovation through monopolistic control
|
||||
- Removes democratic accountability
|
||||
- Increases vulnerability to both market and state exploitation
|
||||
|
||||
Digital resilience requires diverse, distributed infrastructure that no single entity can dominate or disrupt.
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Messaging Infrastructure
|
||||
|
||||
**Position: Public messaging infrastructure should be a digital public good, not controlled by individuals or corporations.**
|
||||
|
||||
We believe that communication platforms that serve as de facto public squares should not be subject to the whims of individual owners like Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg. These platforms have become essential infrastructure for civic discourse, organizing, and information sharing.
|
||||
|
||||
When such infrastructure is privately controlled:
|
||||
|
||||
- Arbitrary rule changes can disrupt communities and vital communication
|
||||
- Commercial incentives distort information flows
|
||||
- Owners can impose their personal ideologies on global speech
|
||||
- Essential public functions lack democratic accountability
|
||||
|
||||
Communication infrastructure should be built on open protocols, federation, and community governance rather than centralized corporate control.
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Internet Access & Net Neutrality
|
||||
|
||||
**Position: Open Internet access is a human right that requires appropriate regulation.**
|
||||
|
||||
We believe that access to an open, neutral Internet is a fundamental right in the digital age. This requires preventing internet service providers (ISPs) from engaging in society-antagonistic practices such as:
|
||||
|
||||
- Violating network neutrality by discriminating between different types of content
|
||||
- Implementing asymmetric speeds that privilege consumption over creation
|
||||
- Using carrier-grade NAT and other techniques that undermine peer-to-peer connectivity
|
||||
- Blocking or throttling competitive services
|
||||
- Creating artificial scarcity through data caps and tiered access
|
||||
|
||||
Appropriate regulation is necessary to ensure that internet infrastructure serves the public interest rather than merely corporate profit.
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Public Investment & Governance
|
||||
|
||||
**Position: Democratic societies must invest in public digital infrastructure with appropriate governance.**
|
||||
|
||||
We believe that governments have a responsibility to support and develop digital public goods, just as they invest in physical infrastructure and public services. This requires:
|
||||
|
||||
- Direct public funding for open source development
|
||||
- Support for community-governed digital commons
|
||||
- Procurement policies that prioritize open standards and software
|
||||
- Investment in digital literacy and technical capacity
|
||||
- Governance models that ensure public accountability
|
||||
|
||||
When government abdicates this responsibility, it cedes the digital future to corporate interests that are not aligned with the public good.
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Technical Quality & User Agency
|
||||
|
||||
**Position: User-centered, community-driven technology consistently delivers better quality and respects user agency.**
|
||||
|
||||
We believe that technology developed with genuine respect for users—their needs, rights, and agency—produces superior results. Software and services that are accountable to their users, rather than to shareholders or advertisers, tend to be:
|
||||
|
||||
- More reliable and secure
|
||||
- More respectful of user attention and capabilities
|
||||
- Less bloated with unwanted features
|
||||
- More adaptable to diverse contexts
|
||||
- More aligned with human well-being
|
||||
|
||||
This position is not merely ideological but practical: when developers are aligned with users rather than conflicting commercial imperatives, they build better technology.
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Digital Self-Determination
|
||||
|
||||
**Position: Individuals and communities have the right to technological self-determination.**
|
||||
|
||||
We believe that people should be able to understand, control, and meaningfully shape the technology that increasingly mediates their lives. This requires:
|
||||
|
||||
- Access to source code and technical knowledge
|
||||
- The right to modify and adapt tools for local needs
|
||||
- Control over personal data and digital identity
|
||||
- Freedom to choose or create alternatives to dominant systems
|
||||
- Protection from coercive digital dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination is not a luxury but a necessity for maintaining human dignity and agency in the digital age.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
These position statements reflect our values and inform our approach to building, advocating for, and supporting technology that serves civil society rather than undermining it. They are living statements that may evolve as technology and societal needs change, but they remain grounded in our core commitment to digital self-determination and the flourishing of civil society.
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: What We Believe
|
||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
||||
weight: 60
|
||||
featureImageCaption: "Photo by <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/@nasa?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">NASA</a> on <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/photos/satellite-view-of-earths-surface-_SFJhRPzJHs?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Unsplash</a>"
|
||||
aliases:
|
||||
- /articles/position-statements/
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
These beliefs guide our work. They're not abstract principles—they're what we've learned from watching communities build technology that actually serves them.
|
||||
|
||||
## Technology can be a public good
|
||||
|
||||
**Some software is too important to be driven primarily by profit.**
|
||||
|
||||
Just as we have public parks, libraries, and utilities, we need digital spaces governed for public benefit. Communication platforms, identity systems, information access tools—these serve essential social functions. When profit is the only driver, these systems inevitably prioritize engagement and data extraction over human well-being.
|
||||
|
||||
This doesn't mean all software must be non-commercial. It means we need robust alternatives developed explicitly for communities. And here's what we've found: these alternatives often work better, because they're designed around what people actually need.
|
||||
|
||||
## Privacy is a foundation, not a feature
|
||||
|
||||
**Everyone deserves meaningful control over their personal information.**
|
||||
|
||||
Privacy isn't a luxury or a preference—it's a necessary condition for freedom of thought, association, and expression. Technology should be designed with privacy as a core requirement, not an afterthought or a premium upgrade.
|
||||
|
||||
When communities run their own infrastructure, privacy becomes real. Your data stays where you put it. Your conversations remain private. Your patterns of life aren't being analyzed and monetized.
|
||||
|
||||
## Communities should control their own spaces
|
||||
|
||||
**Digital infrastructure shouldn't be concentrated in a few hands.**
|
||||
|
||||
When a handful of companies control cloud services, social platforms, and network access, they gain unprecedented power over society. This concentration creates vulnerabilities, enables surveillance, and removes democratic accountability.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital resilience requires diverse, distributed infrastructure. Communities that own their own technology can't be cut off by a distant business decision or a platform's policy change.
|
||||
|
||||
## Communication belongs to everyone
|
||||
|
||||
**Public messaging infrastructure should be a public good.**
|
||||
|
||||
Platforms that serve as public squares shouldn't be subject to any individual's whims. When communication infrastructure is privately controlled, arbitrary rule changes can disrupt communities, commercial incentives distort information, and essential public functions lack accountability.
|
||||
|
||||
Communication infrastructure works better when it's built on open protocols, federation, and community governance. Many voices, many spaces, connected but not controlled.
|
||||
|
||||
## Content governance should be local
|
||||
|
||||
**Communities know their own needs better than distant platforms.**
|
||||
|
||||
One-size-fits-all content policies can't meet the diverse, contextual needs of different communities. What works for one group may harm another. Algorithmic enforcement misses nuance and context.
|
||||
|
||||
True content governance requires community-determined standards, transparent processes, and distributed rather than centralized authority. Federated, community-governed platforms make this possible.
|
||||
|
||||
## The internet should be open
|
||||
|
||||
**Access to an open, neutral internet is a fundamental right.**
|
||||
|
||||
Internet service should treat all content equally, support both consumption and creation, and enable peer-to-peer connectivity. Artificial scarcity through data caps and tiered access serves corporate interests, not communities.
|
||||
|
||||
When communities build their own networks—as many are doing—they can ensure that infrastructure serves people rather than extracting from them.
|
||||
|
||||
## Public investment matters
|
||||
|
||||
**Democratic societies should invest in digital public goods.**
|
||||
|
||||
Governments invest in physical infrastructure and public services. Digital infrastructure deserves the same attention. This means funding open source development, supporting community-governed digital commons, and prioritizing open standards in procurement.
|
||||
|
||||
When government abdicates this responsibility, it cedes the digital future to interests that aren't aligned with public good.
|
||||
|
||||
## User-centered technology works better
|
||||
|
||||
**Software built for people, not shareholders, produces better results.**
|
||||
|
||||
This isn't just ideological—it's practical. When developers are accountable to users rather than conflicting commercial imperatives, they build technology that's more reliable, more secure, less bloated, and more respectful of human attention and capabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
Communities that build their own tools consistently report that those tools work better for their actual needs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Self-determination is essential
|
||||
|
||||
**People should be able to understand and shape the technology in their lives.**
|
||||
|
||||
This requires access to source code and technical knowledge, the right to modify tools for local needs, control over personal data, and freedom to choose or create alternatives.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination isn't a luxury. It's necessary for maintaining human dignity and agency in a world increasingly mediated by technology.
|
||||
|
||||
## Building is better than fighting
|
||||
|
||||
**The best way to create change is to build alternatives so good that people choose them freely.**
|
||||
|
||||
We believe in demonstrating what's possible rather than just critiquing what exists. When communities see that they can own their digital homes, that the tools can work better, that neighbors can build together—they choose independence not because they're told to, but because it's genuinely better.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
These beliefs inform everything we do—the tools we build, the communities we support, the future we're working toward. They're grounded in our commitment to digital self-determination and the flourishing of civil society.
|
||||
|
||||
And they're not just beliefs. Communities around the world are already living them.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user