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.)