Does Self-Sovereignty Mean We Give Up Access?

Posted on 22nd Jun 2022

I recently had a discussion with someone regarding self-host and self-sovereignty in regards to “giving up” access to people, services, or even information. They made some very good points about certain limitations between self-sovereignty and company-controlled services. Do we sacrifice (or give up) access by taking control and ownership of ourselves online? If our friends on Facebook, or Twitter do not follow us to services like Diaspora or Mastodon, do we have to choose between our own self-sovereignty and our access to our friends online?

To be fair, it is completely valid and something I was not prepared to answer at that time. I had to spend time thinking more about what the person had said and do some research on this topic. After considerable time of the subject, here is my response.

I believe the description self-sovereignty is something that must be defined by each person who chooses it. While there can be a basic “global” description of what it is, I feel that each persons needs, goals, and expectations will play a part in the level of self-sovereignty they will pursue. In my case it’s an easy answer. I go full in, sacrificing what I must to achieve it. It’s not so simple for most people however. I think when we talk more about self-sovereignty some people can misinterpret what that actually means. Is it possible to be self-sovereign and have a Facebook account, for example? I believe you can. Because you can choose what information you provide, and what information you limit access to on Facebook. Most of the time, when people refer to self-host and self-sovereignty I believe they refer to ownership of information and ownership of access. If you operate or use Mastodon and/or Diaspora (for example), you can allow yourself more freedoms of what you say and how you say it, along with what information you provide (knowing you have more control over what happens to it) but still maintain access to your friends on Facebook or Twitter, as long as you are careful what you provide on the platform. You may be limiting others access to you (including these companies), but you maintain access to your friends, family and others on these platforms. When done correctly, I do not believe that self-sovereignty means cutting ties to services that allow you access to those you care about, but it does require you to consider what content you provide on these platforms of which you have no control over. If you do that, you can still maintain a level of privacy, self-ownership and self-sovereignty.

While the conversation was limited to more social media aspects, I believe this topic can be widely applied to other services as well. The main point is to limit these other platforms access to you and your information while you use them. If you don’t absolutely require the platform to know “this” or “that” about you, don’t give it to the platform. Choose to limit access to yourself as much as possible.