Starting from almost the worst, from a dehumanized, mammoth organization, made up of officials, taking into account that it is a technical agreement between hostile parties in the world.
The united nations, define this, as Consensus regarding indigenous peoples.
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/FreePriorandInformedConsent.pdf
Considering that the declaration comes after 400 years of slavery and exploitation, they define what consent means at a minimum:
Asking permission from native/indigenous peoples, with the stipulations that it be:
* given FREELY, not coerced, blackmailed or altered.
* PRIOR, first I ask you to do things, then I do them.
* INFORMED, you are entitled to all the information you need to understand the application and evaluate it.
:::::
This got me thinking about a better articulated definition of consensus that came from below, the FRIE consensus.
Free, freely given
Revocable, revocable
Informed, informed
Entusiastic, enthusiastic
Found in the American fanzine: Meeting for Group Health. Paper only, sorry.
:::::
Tied to technologies the reflection of the Brazilian feminists of Codingrights:
https://codingrights.org/docs/ConsentToOurDataBodies.pdf
on Pages 24 and 25, offer a definition of consent that they claim is taken into account, and not replaced, by buttons: AGREE.
1) active
2) withdrawable
3) clear
4) informed
5) specific and non-transferable
:::::
Another resource I came across to talk about consent, this video:
Consent Explained with Tea
ecco da dove è iniziato: https://web.archive.org/web/20150313233048/http://www.rockstardinosaurpirateprincess.com/2015/03/02/consent-not-actually-that-complicated/