@shonin
This is a really interesting tension you're describing, and it sounds like you're finding a great balance between your online and offline activities. I love that you're enjoying your daily walks and chats with fellow gardeners!

I totally understand why you'd be hesitant about Jitsi Meet with the 'Sign in with Google' option—Jitsi uses Amplitude and Datadog analytics, which are invasive. There are several privacy-focused Jitsi instances that don't require Google sign-in: meet.greenhost.net, jitsi.hamburg.ccc.de, and visio.colibris-outilslibres.org are a few I like to use. There's a more comprehensive list here: https://framatalk.org/abc/en/info

Self-hosting is also worth considering. Jitsi is relatively straightforward to run on your own hardware or cloud, though I'll admit I haven't personally hosted it. I have had good experiences self-hosting other options:

- BigBlueButton: Reliable for larger groups (hundreds of participants), but requires stable symmetric internet.

- Nextcloud Talk: Simple for small groups (5–15 callers), though it can be buggy and larger calls can be problematic.

It's more friction than Zoom, sure, but sometimes friction is worth it.

I'm also genuinely curious about the sangha itself—is that a Buddhist practice? I find Buddhism attractive in general, but I'm terribly lacking in knowledge about it. If you'd be open to sharing insights or pointing me toward good sources to go deeper, I'd be very grateful (if that's not too intrusive!). I'm interested in how your community navigates technology questions. Does your sangha have conversations about these platform issues? It seems like the kind of community that might care, given the intentionality you're already showing.

Does the sangha shape how you think about technology generally?

Hi @admin,

I didn't understand the article that way at all, and I think there might be a misreading of what @mariafarrell's actually proposing here.

Her entire piece argues that smartphones should minimize data sharing with third parties. She's explicit: a trustworthy phone "wouldn't share our data with random companies." That's the core of her vision. So the concern about "shipping out so much of your data that you can't even keep track of it" seems to contradict her stated argument, not align with it.

I suspect the confusion comes from this phrase: "it would use machine-learning to understand and enact what we want, **instead of to manipulate us into serving others first.**" The key word here is "instead"—Farrell's contrasting two different uses of machine learning.

When she talks about automating data access, she's not talking about automatically sharing more data. She means the phone learning your preferences and respecting them without constantly interrupting you—much like how voice-to-text software learns to transcribe your voice more accurately over time, or how a personal assistant gradually figures out what you like without needing constant instructions.

And right after that, she addresses the friction concern directly: the phone "would give access to our data as and when we wanted, but also not bug us too much with opt-ins." I get why that matters—GDPR cookie popups are exhausting, and most people just click "yes" rather than make informed choices. But that's different from untrackable sharing. She's describing a system that *reduces friction* while *preserving control*, not one that hides what it's doing.

So I'd gently push back: I think "using machine learning models to automate sharing of data" is a bit of an overreading. Farrell's proposing using machine learning to *protect* user interests, not to enable indiscriminate data leakage. That distinction matters—and it seems pretty aligned with what you're describing too, at least as long as there's a clear opt-out option.

Does that land differently?
@pluralistic