Aral BalkanJul 2, 2017

The Universal Declaration of Cyborg Rights – Draft 0.1

We cannot protect human rights in the era of networked digital technology without correctly defining personhood and the boundaries of the self and applying the human rights we already have to this, new, extended cyborg self.

The Universal Declaration of Cyborg rights extends The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to bring it into the 21st century.

Thoughts? (Please share your long-form comments on the site.)

https://cyborgrights.eu/

Show threadGadfly (-booq-)Jul 2, 2017
@aral I probably have a more substantial response to this, but my first reaction is, like, it's kinda REALLY surreal to see a "Cyborg Rights" manifesto that doesn't seem obviously harking back to Haraway's "Cyborg Manifesto".
(Maybe I'm just missing it, though. I've only read/skimmed through Haraway, like, 2.5 times, and am very bad at details...)
Show threadGadfly (-booq-)Jul 2, 2017
@aral More substantially, but still mostly Initial Reactions:
It definitely sort of hangs at the end. It leaves the implications of "The articles of The UDHR apply[ing] to the definition of human beings and protect[ing] the integrity and dignity of the cyborg self." ENTIRELY up to the reader, as well as the definitions of "cyborg self" and "sharded beings".
Show threadGadfly (-booq-)Jul 2, 2017
@aral While it maybe shouldn't follow the implications all the way down into the weeds, as proposed Articles 4 and 5 did, it should still lay out a specific set of rights which follow from it.
Show threadGadfly (-booq-)Jul 2, 2017

@aral (Aside: would it be better to discuss this with your @aral account or with your @aral account? Is there a preference at all?)

(2nd aside: Have you yet solicited input from the nettime mailing list or the Xenofeminists? Those are two groups off the top of my head that seem like they would have Opinions)

Show threadAral BalkanJul 3, 2017

@gaditb @aral Either is fine. Although we do have an account handle display problem, at least in Amaroq ;)

CC @Gargron
https://mastodon.ar.al/media/2oN-4q0CDXA6V4-oP2s

Show threadGadfly (-booq-)Jul 3, 2017

@aral @Gargron
It's in the default UI too -- two people on different instances with the same username are displayed the same. Maybe that could be checked for and unelided?

(Maybe I'll do that when I finally get around to setting up my dev.glitch.social account...)

Show threadEugen RochkoJul 3, 2017
@gaditb @aral you mean we should check if a post contains two mentions of the same username at different domains, and in that case not shorten it?
Show threadAral BalkanJul 4, 2017
@Gargron @gaditb I don’t think we should shorten it at all (or only do so if the account is on the same instance as the person viewing it – that would be helpful in differentiating local accounts immediately). The full address is a cornerstone of what makes Mastodon unique (its federated nature) – we should be making that visible.
Show threadinmysocks Of Doom, Naked KSCJul 4, 2017
@aral @Gargron @gaditb I second not shortening the names, it gives a much better sense of what is going on in terms of federation.
Show threadGadfly (-booq-)
@inmysocks @aral @Gargron I think it's definitely something which can/should be experimented with. Like, here's my quick thought from an upthread fork: https://icosahedron.website/@gaditb/2480026
Jul 4, 2017 at 3:37pmWeb