Principle: Individual Digital Sovereignty

[timbl]

The idea that the web should empower individuals is an important one which is not currently captured.

Proposed Name:

Individual Digital Sovereignty

Proposed body:

Individual Digital Sovereignty empowers people by giving them control over their data, tools, and online experiences, enabling them to create, collaborate, and interact freely across platforms without reliance on centralized entities, much like the early days of the web when everyone had the freedom to build and shape their own website.

Note in the name "Individual" is included so as to distinguish from National Digital Sovereignty.

The existing principle "The web enhances individuals' control and power" does not capture this as the body text talks about two things:

• That big companies exploit people - a double negative which doesn't capture the positive value we need.
• That anyone should be able to be a developer, which is nice to have but missed the main point

One could imagine merging these two principles.

[mnot]

The similarity in terminology to "sovereign citizen" is uncomfortable. Digital sovereignty for states is likewise a contested term -- it might be better to steer clear of the 's' word altogether.

[martinthomson]

For me, the key criticism here is that the text of the existing principle is not positively framed. Instead, it is framed as double negatives, almost exclusively (the authoring point excluded).

I'd prefer to concentrate on fixing the text we have rather than add a redundant principle, especially given the questionable 's' word usage. Modulo that word, the proposed text might be a good preface to the existing text, though that might then be in need of a serious haircut.

[csarven]

Freedom from centralised control must extend to online identity. This is a a key aspect missing from the EWP. Reliance on third-party authorities for identity management undermines autonomy and introduces single points of failure. The principles should explicitly emphasise individual control over identity to ensure genuine digital sovereignty.

[timbl]

I see the problem with "sovereign citizen". I had not come across it. What arealternatives? ChatGPT suggests:

To define “individual digital sovereignty” without using the term “sovereign,” several alternative expressions could be considered. These terms still convey the sense of personal control, autonomy, and self-determination over one’s digital presence and data:

1. Digital Autonomy – Emphasizes an individual’s ability to control their digital interactions and data.
2. Personal Digital Agency – Focuses on the power of individuals to manage and make decisions about their digital identities and assets.
3. Self-Determined Digital Identity – Highlights the capacity for individuals to define and protect their identity in the digital space.
4. Digital Independence – This term stresses the ability of individuals to operate without reliance on external entities, such as large platforms or governments, for managing their digital presence.
5. Digital Self-Governance – Suggests the concept of governing one’s own digital data and interactions, evoking the notion of personal rule or management.

These alternatives maintain the core idea of control and independence while avoiding the connotations tied to “sovereign” and its historical or political baggage   .

[timbl]

How about "Personal Digital Agency"?

[lknik]

I see the 'sovereignty' as an expression used to a State/country/government-like activity. While I am aware of it being used as a buzzword by some companies, I would suggest to avoid it in internet standards. How about: autonomy, agency, control?

[timbl]

'self-sovereignty' It is used a lot in the blockchain world. Eg by OKTA , and see Wikipedia. Maybe there is enough that use out there in fact to reduce the risk that people will associate it with "sovereign citizen".

[timbl]

The web enhances personal digital agency

Personal Digital Agency empowers people by giving them control over their identity, data, tools, and online experiences, enabling them to create, collaborate, and interact freely across platforms without reliance on centralized entities, much like the early days of the web when everyone had the freedom to build and shape their own website.

We will also build web technologies for individual developers as well as for developers at large companies and organizations. The web should enable do-it-yourself developers.

The web does not harm people

We recognize that web technologies can be used to manipulate and deceive people, complicate isolation, and encourage addictive behaviors. We seek to mitigate against these potential abuses and patterns when creating new technologies and platforms, and avoid introducing technologies that increase the chance of people being harmed in this way.

[timbl]

It seems we need two separate ones for the positive and the harms. @csarven: Added identity .

[timbl]

The harms but should maybe be merged with 2.2 The web does not cause harm to society? Or are harms to people separate from harms to society

[darobin]

I know that the term "user" has come into some disrepute, but we have a whole thing built atop the notion of "user agent." We might as well lean into it by advocating for user agency, perhaps with a brief explanation of "user."

I agree with @martinthomson that a more positive framing is desirable. I will once again suggest that relying on the capabilities framework is almost certainly the right idea there, given that it was designed for this, is pragmatically applicable, supports evaluation, and ties to human rights. See this post for further details.

I will also note that "personal digital agency" sounds very individualistic to me; tying to capabilities at least opens the bridge to the collective dimension of agency.

Since we're talking about the "s" word, I would suggest that it wouldn't be the worst idea to have a position there (rather than to let it be taken over). We can keep the "sovereign citizen" madness at bay by focusing on agency, but we can also state that The web supports peoples' right to self-determination which is coded differently and aligns with both Article 1 of the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations. (Maybe this deserves a separate issue.)

[mediaprophet]

The vocab 'structures' I last got to was:

• Selfhood = the stuff that's got nothing to do with anyone else.
• Personhood = stuff that does have something to do with other people, and may be subject to some sort of legal responsibilities.
• Human Agency = pertains to natural rights, as are articulated by human rights instruments and other 'values' instruments.

Historically, the term 'human' was specifically employed to mitigate 'legal personhood' related factors, whether it be for legal personalities (ie: incorporated entities) or software agents, that may be granted legal personhood in a juristiction somewhere..

The other notion, is that of moral grammar, which i think is intrinsically part of the philosophical engineering 'qualia'; noting, that advanced consideration of the implications of the desire to ensure natural persons have a right to own their own 'mindware' (the software emboidment, or prosthetic extension of self); which, in-turn relates to a very old debate about whether persons are defined by others, or by their actions (ie: right to self-determination); which, considering the complexity of multi-agent systems interacting as observers often with various forms of intermediatories increasingly involved, has a level of necessary complexity.

Another related consideration, was extracted fro a document titled the fundamental charter of christian ethical finance which notes '"An Interfaith Declaration: A Code of Ethics on International Business for Christians, Muslims , and Jews"(1994);", and upon which basis, the consideration that "Money must serve and not govern", may be in-turn applied upon 'knowledge systems' / information management systems architectures and related w3c works; as to consider, aspects pertaining to the status of observers, as is influenced by the use of w3c licensed works and the dynamics brought about in relation to human rights treaties, and related obligations - argubly - of all members of our human family for one-another.

Processing these considerations via foaf:agent:software:llama-3.1-8b-instruct, the following outline has been provided.

Title: Individuals' Autonomy and Agency on the Web

Body:

The web should empower individuals to exercise their autonomy and agency over their digital lives by enabling them to make informed choices about their data, tools, and online experiences. This principle acknowledges the importance of individual self-determination, recognizing that people have natural rights to control their own mindware, data, and online interactions.

We value the freedom to create, collaborate, and interact on the web without undue influence or reliance on centralized entities. Individuals should be able to make choices about how they engage with online platforms, services, and content, and have the means to express themselves authentically in a digital environment that respects their personhood and human agency.

This principle aligns with the spirit of the early web, where individuals had the freedom to build and shape their own websites without relying on intermediaries. We strive to create a web that enables individuals to thrive, exercise their creativity, and maintain control over their digital lives, while also respecting the rights and dignity of all members of our human family.

Rationale:

This principle captures the essence of individual digital sovereignty, emphasizing the importance of autonomy, agency, and self-determination in the digital age. By focusing on individuals' ability to make informed choices about their data, tools, and online experiences, this principle promotes a web that values personhood, human rights, and moral grammar.

Key Concepts:

• Autonomy: The capacity for individuals to govern themselves and make decisions about their digital lives.
• Agency: The ability of individuals to exercise control over their online interactions and experiences.
• Personhood: Recognition of an individual's inherent dignity and worth, acknowledging their rights and responsibilities in the digital environment.
• Human Agency: The natural rights and freedoms that arise from human existence, including the right to self-determination and autonomy.
• Mindware: The software embodiment or prosthetic extension of an individual's self, which should be under their control and agency.

This principle is informed by the considerations mentioned earlier, including:

• Historical context: The term "human" was used to mitigate legal personhood-related factors.
• Philosophical engineering: Advanced consideration of implications for natural persons owning their own mindware.
• Moral grammar: Intrinsic part of philosophical engineering's qualia.
• Interfaith Declaration: A Code of Ethics on International Business (1994) - "Money must serve and not govern" can be applied to knowledge systems/information management systems architectures.

The proposed principle title, Individuals' Autonomy and Agency on the Web, captures the essence of individual digital sovereignty while avoiding potential pitfalls associated with the term "self-sovereign."

“the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made” Anton Zeilinger