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.)

cyborgrights.eu/

@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...)

@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".

@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.

@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)

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

CC @Gargron
mastodon.ar.al/media/2oN-4q0CD

@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...)

@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?

Aral Balkan @aral

@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.

· Web · 6 · 3

@aral @gaditb No, I don't agree. Longer usernames is a lot of redundant information that would make it harder to read the actual content. If you hover the usernames, the full version appears as a tooltip. I think that's enough

@Gargron @gaditb I share your concern regarding readability of toots. Hover, however, isn’t accessible on touch devices or for screenreaders (e.g., Voiceover only reads what’s visible). I do feel that having the full address for _remote_ names would make sense in the same way it does for email addresses. (And, as mentioned earlier, make it easier for new people to form a conceptual model of how Mastodon works.)

@aral @Gargron Sure, but on the other hand (almost?) all modern email clients elide the email under a display name, only visible on mouse-over or some other interaction.

Furthermore, that is displayed outside of the message itself. And, emails are longer than toots, so the list of addresses rarely is the same length as the message.

@aral @Gargron @gaditb I second not shortening the names, it gives a much better sense of what is going on in terms of federation.

@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: icosahedron.website/@gaditb/24