It’s about digital sovereignty: specifically mine.

The idea of giving vast amounts, if not all, of my data to a single company once seemed sensible. However, I now realize that spreading data across multiple providers can increase accountability. When information isn’t concentrated in a single ecosystem, companies must stay responsive to customers, and customers can hold them responsible for their actions.

With whom is it shared, and under what conditions?

The data is mine; that depiction of who I am, my metadata, is me. Ultimately, I want to know which side of the balancing act a company cares about most:

• Does it view my data primarily as an asset, a source of revenue and competitive advantage?
• Or does it treat my data as a liability, where the main concern is the cost and reputational damage of a breach or unwanted sharing of my metadata?

I want to use technology, I don't want technology using me; I am not the content.

How is my data stored?

Just as car accidents happen, data breaches will happen too, hopefully far less often. If I spread my data around, I may become more exposed overall, but each exposure will be limited. I’m not a puritan; I live in the real world and know it’s a balancing act. As such, I prefer my data to be seen more as a liability than an asset.

Complexity

I do realize this approach also increases complexity. Managing a fragmented digital presence requires remembering how my data lives across many services and building a mental map. If I try to document my thoughts and workflows, I create a kind of “treasure map” that shows where everything resides. I, however, will try to provide some insight on my thoughts and workflows on this site.