Is there no alternative to the use of the most popular social media & messenger services? Not at all!

Almost everyone uses social media and messenger services every day... But why is this almost exclusively limited to Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp and Co.? The most obvious answer seems to be: Because most people are active in these networks which allows a particularly broad range – both to reach others as well as to be heard by others. If everyone persists on this viewpoint, unfortunately, nothing will ever change – although there are much more good reasons to use alternatives than to stick to the most widely used networks, thereby supporting their monopoly.

If you want to make use of services like Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Co., it is unavoidable to agree to the general terms and conditions as well as to the data protection guidelines. But honestly, who reads all this every time? This is even though everyone should always have read everything in the small print to give consent consciously. In the currently valid terms and conditions of Facebook (as of January 30, 2015), for example, users explicitly must give their permission to a worldwide license which allows the platform to use all published contents (texts, photos and videos) which are actually protected by the right of intellectual property.

This means that ownership and control over all published content must be handed over to third parties forever and irrevocably, while allowing Facebook additionally to collect and use this information for its own purposes. If you do not want this, you de facto cannot use the network anymore. This should be clear to everyone. With Twitter, it does not look much better. Regardless of the country from which you provide your data, you must authorise the company to reuse all information in the US and in any other country in which it is active. Consequently, it remains perfectly unclear where personal data are spread and used.

The updated terms and conditions of WhatsApp published last year make the use of the service almost impossible, too, since you must confirm that you are authorised to transfer the contact data saved in your address book to the company. Not a single user of the messenger has probably obtained such permission from each individual contact. Consequently, the use of such services does not only lead to a negligent handling of one’s own data, but also of those of completely uninvolved third parties. Even worse – this does of course also affect those who have deliberately decided to use alternatives to protect themselves against this madness. Therefore, it should be clear to everyone that everybody does not only bear responsibility for his own data, but also for those of others.

This should rouse even those with a “I do not care attitude” at the very latest and motivate to use services such as Diaspora, Mastodon, Signal and Co. Instead of storing data on huge central servers belonging to large organisations located in regions with questionable privacy guidelines, local servers (pods) can be set up anywhere in the world for the free use of the social network Diaspora. Therefore, you do not only decide with which pod you want to register, but you will also always preserve the rights over your data. Another decentralised free alternative on open-source basis is the 2016 in Germany developed microblogging service Mastodon.

Here, so called toots are posted instead of tweets. In addition to the self-determination how the content of these toots will be used, they allow the utilisation of up to 500 characters. Moreover, there is a particularly recommendable alternative to the messenger service WhatsApp taken over by Facebook in 2014 which treats data security as top priority. If Open Whisper Systems was forced to release data from Signal users and their communication, the company would only be able to provide their registration date and the time of the last login. Everything else is neither visible nor saved, but is encrypted just as any content.

The bottom line is that Diaspora, Mastodon, Signal and Co. are clearly more transparent and user-friendly platforms than Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Co., on which the user, his interests and, above all, data security are clearly in the focus. All laws for the protection of personal data will be ineffective and useless if providers constantly disregard them, while users support this behaviour by using such services. Therefore, anybody should constantly ask him-/herself whether he/she is aware of and constantly giving sufficient consideration to this responsibility. If this question cannot be answered with a clear “yes” in any case, it will be high time to build up a second mainstay, as well as to convince family and friends to also use it exclusively in the long term.

Further services, information and comparisons are available via http://alternativeto.net abrufbar.

[Sources: https://de-de.facebook.com/legal/terms, https://twitter.com/de/tos, https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/?l=de, https://diasporafoundation.org/, https://mastodon.social/terms, https://whispersystems.org/, https://www.aixzellent.com/de/facebook]

Write a new comment:

Name

E-Mail

Enter the letters from the image

Refresh