DIGITAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Collections
1

Digital Bill of Rights

Preamble:
We, the users of digital platforms, in order to establish a more secure, private, and fair digital environment, do ordain and establish this Digital Bill of Rights.

Article I: Freedom of Digital Expression

  • Right to Free Speech: Users shall have the freedom to express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions online without fear of censorship or retribution, except where such expressions incite violence, spread disinformation, or violate privacy.

Article II: Privacy Protection

  • Right to Privacy: Individuals have the right to privacy in their digital communications and data. This includes:
    • Data Minimization: Collection of personal data should be minimized and justified.
    • Transparency: Companies must clearly disclose what data is collected and how it is used.
    • Consent: Explicit and informed consent is required for the collection, use, and sharing of personal data.

Article III: Security

  • Right to Security: Users are entitled to have their data and digital interactions protected against unauthorized access or breaches. Companies must:
    • Implement robust security measures.
    • Notify users promptly in the event of a security breach.

Article IV: Non-Discrimination

  • Right to Non-Discriminatory Treatment: Algorithms and digital services must not discriminate based on race, gender, religion, nationality, or any other protected characteristics.

Article V: Access and Inclusion

  • Right to Digital Access: There shall be efforts to ensure all individuals have access to digital services, particularly focusing on reducing the digital divide through:
    • Affordable internet access.
    • Accessibility for people with disabilities.

Article VI: Ownership and Control of Data

  • Right to Data Ownership: Users own their personal data:
    • Portability: Users can move their data between different services.
    • Deletion: Users have the right to delete their data from any service provider.

Article VII: Transparency in Algorithms

  • Right to Know: Users should be informed about how decisions affecting them are made by algorithms, including:
    • Explanation of how these algorithms work in simple terms.
    • The right to contest decisions made by algorithms.

Article VIII: Protection from Exploitation

  • Right Against Exploitation: Protection against manipulative designs (like dark patterns), addictive technologies, and other practices that exploit human psychology for profit.

Article IX: Accountability and Redress

  • Right to Accountability: There must be mechanisms for:
    • Reporting abuses by digital entities.
    • Seeking redress for violations of these rights.

Article X: Amendment Process

  • Right to Evolve: This Digital Bill of Rights can be amended to address new technologies, threats, and societal needs through a process involving both industry and public stakeholders.
14 Likes
2

Love it but I would highly recommend the part about disinformation be removed. Thats a slippery slope as seen by covid. That one line would allow everyone that spoke out against covid online still face the same consequences.

I dislike the clip disinformation mentality especially clips. I think a good way to cut down on out-of-context video clips of public figures would be to require that any clip posted also has a link to the full video for context. If a 10-second clip of someone’s statement is shared, there should be an easy way to see the whole thing so people can judge it fairly. Platforms could use something like “Community Notes” to add the full context, or even use tech to detect when a clip is part of a larger video and automatically link to it.

This wouldn’t stop anyone from sharing clips, but it would make it harder to mislead people with short, edited versions. It could really help improve online discussions by making sure people see the whole picture instead of just a tiny piece.

10 Likes
3

I like the concept, although I believe it could use some tweaks
Article I:
If you “spread disinformation” then someone has to decide what is correct and not correct. Then you no longer have freedom depending on who decides the definition. That part must be removed.
How could me expressing my thought, ideas, and opinons (which are pretty much the same thing) violate someone else’s privacy? That should be removed as article II is about privacy.
I would suggest sticking with the first amendment but make it for digital.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances digitally.

Article II
Maybe also add the right to remain anonymous using a VPN, non identifying screen names, tracking blockers, ad blockers, etc., or any combination of the above.
I would also add something to keep the government in check, similar to the fourth amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, accounts, digital currencies, and devices against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article III:
Please add something that would hold a hosting company accountable for lack of security. If our data is stolen because of a breach now, then many companies give two years of ID theft protection, but everyone knows the internet is forever. Once your info is out there, then it could have effects that show up later than the two-year window most offer.

Article VI:
Please define more about data between different services?

Article IX:
I think it is very important, although more detail is needed. Before submitting for votes, I think we should maybe detail a possible branch of government that people could utilize to report violations of digital rights. Along with the processes taken to enforce and to redress.

Being vague in wording will only leave room for those in power to fill in the blanks. With something like this I believe it should be very specific.

7 Likes
4

good point. agreed about not policing “disinformation” or “malinformation” or any such thing…

5 Likes
5

If any data is sold on an individual they’re owed %55 of the total profit gained each time personal information is sold

3 Likes
6

Awesome point. information that is meant to deceive shall not be acceptable or torrlorated, personal account or raw information shall never be consider dis/mis-information! Freedom of speech not. freedom to deceive.

7

Freedom of speech is only limited to inciting violence or ham physically or financially. Dis/misinformation only exist when one group is trying to control the narrative. If you want factual information then it is your responsibility as a free person to educate yourself enough not to believe everything you see or are told but use it as grounds for research and finding the truth yourself. Explore multiple points of view and come to a reasonable conclusion. That is how real progress is made. Not by censoring anyone. One cannot advocate for censoring anything and freedom of speech in the same sentence in a factual statement.

4 Likes
8

We definitely need something that addresses the user agreements, etc. They are so long and I read them but many do not, it is a daunting task and often filled with language people do not understand. Loving these threads

4 Likes
9

Legislation similar to this already exists.
You can look at California’s CCPA laws, and GDPR in UK and EU

GDPR already outlines responsibilities a company has for explicit user consent, security, privacy, accurate information, and limitations on usage of personal data.

CCPA is California’s version of it.

Articles 2,3,4,6,7(partially), 9 are all covered in GDPR laws.

Article 1 is already covered by the Constitution’s 1st Amendment.
What you probably want are these private social media companies to not bend the knee so easily to govt pressure, where they violate your rights on the govts behalf.

There should be stiff penalties for that kind of collusion and corrupt influence, incuding prison time. Social Media needs to be held to a much higher standard.

Article 4 and 5 already has support in other laws, but I like the spirit of it.

Article 8 is challenging. I agree with the concern about dark patterns. Its an unethical practice that needs to stop. Heck, China banned them!
The challenge is that this could easily run afoul of free speech protections in software. It’s gonna be a huge obstacle immediately.

1 Like
10

A digital bill of rights should also include protection in our homes, biometrics, conversations, emails and internet of things sourced data. Drones and low flying planes/equipment can pick up this personal data and currently there are no privacy protections or consumer rights.

1 Like
11

Agree :100: %

I’m one to advocate for “site your source”
Gives a much better credibility and accountability.
Proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Gives one the ability to own opinion and speak about it how they see it. If wrong, site your source to prove otherwise.

This so called Misinformation/Disinformation is only what opinion can be, right or wrong. But a source (that is reliable) can and is fact

1 Like
12

Agreed - National Standards would be helpful.

Re: Art. VI “* Deletion: Users have the right to delete their data from any service provider.”

I’m chiming in to advocate for a requirement that ALL sites provide an accessible and SIMPLE way for registered site users to have their credentials & PII (personally identifiable information) deleted/purged.

Most of us have received one or more notices telling us that one of our password has been compromised. Oftentimes these are associated with a site that we no longer require access too. Yet there’s seldom (if ever) an “Unregister me and delete my info” option. At best, there may be the option to unsubscribe to a newsletter, etc. – thanks to legislation requiring that option! (Yay!)

There may be some limitations to what records can/cannot be purged as record retention schedules may require storage for minimum periods, so this may be an opportunity to standardize rules for this type of digital data.

For reference, I have received over 150 data breech notifications in the last year – NOT ONE impacted SITE has had an “unregister” option.

If you want to check your breech alerts: iPhone users can check their alerts in the Passwords widget. (I assume Android users have a similar widget/app).

13

Article VI on Right of Data Ownership is a slippery slope. Constitutionally authors are protected, at least their intellectual property. When you write something or compose some graphic, you “own” that. You can grant a social media site limited rights to your authored content, but unless they pay you and you sign a contract at the time of posting that it belongs lock, stock and barrel to the website, it still belongs to you.
Of course, you may have used the forge supplied by the website or other tools to author the intellectual property you own and license back to them, but that does not convey the right to alter the writing or graphic. And, IMPORTANTLY, it does not grant the right to the website or any of its agents to DELETE the content you authored.
In other words, a moderator for a webpage cannot expunge or change whatever she/he doesn’t like or remove an entire posting. The moderator can encapsulate the content and return it back to the author, along with objections, and indicate how, if possible, the content might be acceptable.
Imagine you spend 45 minutes typing a comment and then the moderator hits the DELETE button. You can’t restore something you used the website to compose and submit - it’s gone. No website has the right to do that, even if you used their AI, their search engine, their editor, their computing power or anything else to create the content - all they get is the right to display it without paying further compensation, unless they so promised.
Many websites just expunge things they don’t like - that’s wrong. Also, the copyright extends to re-postings and sharings.

14

This must be changed!

Something along the line of “except where such expressions violate established law.”

We must not have the fact checkers, government or a company deciding what are facts and what is disinformation. Industry has already proven this doesn’t work and regularly claims falsehoods and disinformation on reality.

If you are going to put anything about violate privacy it needs to address when and where there is an expectation of privacy and exclude nonspecific observations. As an example if a person is doxed by publishing their home address but not if it is said they live in a specific city, county, or state.

15

This is amazing work. I’m all for it. Great job. :clap:

16

Great idea!

17

“Demonetizing” people is a cruel way to punish opinions that owners and moderators disagree with. The site “promised” to pay for views or clicks and then to punish your opinion, they claim you don’t deserve to be paid for the content you supplied their website.
Worse, they can delete your content or make it unsearchable and no one will ever know what you said. Free Speech is cool, but if no one can hear you, because some tyrannical ideologue erased your stuff or hid it, what’s the point of free speech at all?
Copyright laws need some help. Ban Terms of Use from allowing the website to delete yourself without returning a copy of it or archiving the content where you can retrieve it, even if you used their tools to create it.

18

I have observed my WIFI spying on me for some time. Clearly my MoCA which connects my TV (Youtube) connection is picking up what is on my iphone, etc. ISPs need to be addressed. ISPs were authorized to gather data and sell data

19

Here is the problem that the supreme Court is letting the ban on Tiktko go forward they just set a Stansted that they can take away our right to free speech at any time if they don’t like what they hear on social media or in any company’s, this can be used by any future President if they don’t like what We The People are talking about, so the way I see it our free speech is very much in Jeopardy now