Also called the "Freedom Web Covenant" or the "Inventor's Covenant
Version 1, 11th December 2020
The rise of censorship has divided people apart and ruined the main purpose of what the internet was intended for. Outside of censorship, the internet as we know it have been controlled mostly by corporate giants, monopolies and centralized entities. The fear of a non-open internet is what lead to the development of the decentralized internet, the blockchain, and numerous protocols prior. This is what will lay the foundation of the next generation's internet. Not only is this more open, but less outdated technological infrastructure is needed. Outside of this, the inspiration for this covenant if you will, is humanity. Seemingly, we are becoming more and more divided over issues that shouldn't exist in a modern world. Issues that intellectualism doesn't allow for, such as racism shouldn't exist. However, neither should censorship. It is better to allow hate to speak, so that hate is pointed out and ridiculed. Giving any form of adequate excuse for a central authority on what one can and can not say is usually a slippery slope. A modern day code of ethics should be in place for what will lay the foundation for the current internet, and the next generation's internet. We have many prima facie moral duties in terms of where humanity is going, how technology should be, and pushing society ethically further as a whole. Hence, these standards are in order.
1.0 Mission Statement
Developers should at good faith follow standards that push for both freedom and the betterment of humanity. Technology is meant for the intended purpose of being within the norm of ethics, and built for making people's lives easier and the world a better place. In regards to philosophy, moral deontology is important and doing the greater good in regards to what is the greater good. In regards to contributors, there are also guidelines in place in relation to the contribution and its benefit to the developed project. We have a duty to push for things that can't potential destroy us and for humanity's sake, the things we create are of benefit. Technology shouldn't be dystopian, or have the main purpose of causing human harm outside of the realms of self defense.
2.0 Guidelines
In regards to developers: Developers, also defined as researchers, innovators, inventors, makers, builders, creators, writers and designers, are subject to at their best abide by these sets of guidelines. These guidelines are centered around the ideals that technology should be for the advancement of humanity and pushing civilization forward. In terms of being for the betterment of civilization, technology in essence shouldn't be built with the intention to harm a human being or centered around such outcome. Innovation should be built off of the concept of openness in terms of intellectual diversity. This means being anti-censorship and pro-privacy, as well as pushing freedom of speech as important to core ideals. An open internet that recognizes intellectual diversity, free will, and uniqueness over individualism can be prosperous. In regards to an open internet, this is centered around the fundamental beliefs of freedom of information and intellectual diversity. Opinions, even if deemed offensive, are still part of an open internet. While hate, controversial and offensive beliefs are allowed on an open internet, there are certain limits. Things not protected are things with the intent to harm a human being physically or through emotional means that can cause violence or physical harm.
Things not protected include: Directly targeted forms of harassment with violent intent or stalking, doxxing, promoting suicide or eugenics, pornography, any forms of trafficking or escorts, cannibalism, ethnic cleansing, pedophilia, or direct means of intimidating (in context of boundaries and illicitly harmful intent), silencing, threats, privacy violations or blackmail. These are just some of the direct examples.
Such activities aren't allowed. Common sense traditionally makes this quite obvious for a generally informed population. As a developer, your role is to create an innovation that is bound by ethical principals (in regards to what is allowed and the Future Web Standards). This includes even for non-web related technologies. In terms of being bound by these principals, the innovation in question just needs to not intentionally be built to bypass these principals. For example, someone who designs an ergonomic chair, likely would already be within our guidelines.
In regards to contributors: Contributors are people who build upon a project with hopes that they contribute to said project. There are certain guidelines in which contributors should abide by or to. This is especially critical in regards to allowing for a professional and collaborative environment. For both sides of the development pipeline, it simply isn't enough to add this file to your project and call this a day. While necessarily a majority of the time, there may not be legally enforceable accountability, there is still accountability in other aspects to how said community may react and personal responsibility. As a contributor, you must keep in mind that a contribution considered unrelated to the project as well as comments, are traditionally considered spam. As a contributor, you should realize the importance of context and also keep into consideration professional settings. Also as a contributor, also know that not all contributions may be accepted and some may otherwise need revision, even ones that may be deemed as valuable. The developer should at good faith, accept helpful, intellectual diverse, and relevant contributions.
3.0 Ethical Considerations
In regards to ethical considerations, there are many obvious reasons as to what these considerations are. They have been mentioned throughout this document, and for the sake of being specific, some points needs to be reiterated. Current creator or contributor covenants seem to have numerous loopholes in regards to things that can be taken out of context or not in tact. This in no means makes the claim that this set of standards doesn't have loopholes either, as it is hard for any set of standards to fully be in tact. However, there are certain loopholes that shall be dealt with. Among these loopholes are prune to censorship or some sort of large range of objectivity. Things such as whether a political organization wants to release a verifiable data set related to their org, can be viewed as forms of discrimination when not. Other problems such as misinformation and hate speech that doesn't fall within the context of the harm clause or intentional physical and emotional harm/abuse shouldn't be censored. Even if that information is objectively false or hateful. Leaving such a clause in regards to such information, prevents centralized authorities to censor speech that may not fall with the clause of hateful. Objectively, common sense and logic agrees that such types of speech has no place in a civil and intellectual diverse society. However, it is much better to combat such information using objective logic and ridicule over the removal of said speech. This allows for the promotion of intellectual diversity and civility without allowing for a potentially hazardous power grab. Such way of doing things is what allow society to move forward from outdated belief systems or problematic history.
The next area of discussion is innovation, and the outermost important context of innovation. As mentioned previously, and should be reiterated, "innovation should make people's life easier and/or better", it should be for the "advancement of civilization" and "not with the solely intended purpose of harming another human being outside the context of self-defense". These are important things to take into consideration. It is also critical to consider the context as mentioned in the previous sections as well as within applicable contextual meaning.
Here are some key terms to define that may or may not have been mentioned:
- Anarcho-Capitalism: Removal of central authorities over favoring everything done within a private market type system, for context see here.
- Neo-classical Contract: Requiring trilateral/third party assurance in regards to disputes, see here
- Deontological ethics: Based on whether the action is right or wrong instead of consequentialism for said action.
- Prima facie: At first impression, working towards a verdict, see here
- Intellectual Diversity: Difference in ideas, beliefs, thought systems, expressions, and opinions
The current version of the Future Web Standards is version 1, and may or may not be updated over time. If updated, a new version # and date will be there to reflect the changes.