Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 188 posts

Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

#71

Post by mdszy »

sneak wrote: post #58
austinheap wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one controls Mastodon -- setup an instance and you're off to the races!

The idea of preemptive banning of federating with other instances is extremely common in Mastodon-land. This means that unilateral actions by admins, invisible to their userbase, restrict what their users can read, or who can read their users. It would be fine if the users opted into this, but it happens silently and arbitrarily by admins, oftentimes based on speculation or gossip, not even real abuse. It’s all of th…

Why does anyone have a requirement to talk to your instance? What if, due to your ideological stance on issues, I don't trust that your server won't decide that mine is distasteful in some way, and that you'd cause your server to disrupt mine in some way by flooding it with messages, for instance? I have legitimately had this happen and it nearly brought down my instance. Some script-kiddie decided to fuck around and spam my account on an instance I run with about 2000 followers in the course of a few seconds. This almost killed my server entirely. Why should I have been forced to interact with their server on the grounds of free speech?

Why does it matter if any instance decides they don't want to associate with you? It doesn't affect your ability to use the service beyond not being able to interact with folks who probably don't want to talk to you anyway.

Forcing someone to make their server software talk to yours is just as much of a "Free Speech" infringement, if not moreso.

Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

#72

Post by mdszy »

jack1243star wrote: post #64
AsyncAwait wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You conveniently omit that mastodon.social operates from Germany and thus simply cannot legally federate with many of the Japanese instances.

If you know about this, you should consider that mastodon.social acts as an example instance. This effectively made blocking Pawoo and a few other instances the norm. There was a block-list circulating around, and if you do not block every instance on the list, your instance is misogynist, pedophile and far-right.

As someone who actually administers a Mastodon instance, this is absolutely not the case and is a complete exaggeration.

Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

#73

Post by progval »

jack1243star wrote: post #64
AsyncAwait wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You conveniently omit that mastodon.social operates from Germany and thus simply cannot legally federate with many of the Japanese instances.

If you know about this, you should consider that mastodon.social acts as an example instance. This effectively made blocking Pawoo and a few other instances the norm. There was a block-list circulating around, and if you do not block every instance on the list, your instance is misogynist, pedophile and far-right.

> There was a block-list circulating around, and if you do not block every instance on the list, your instance is misogynist, pedophile and far-right.

I must have missed the memo, because I run a medium-sized instance, don't follow any blocklist, and no one ever complained about it.

Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

#74

Post by zaarn »

numpad0 wrote: post #17
throwaway1997 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was assuming it was due to the sheer volume of loli being posted on that instance. Most instances block / mute it for this reason.

Anything that isn’t photography is freedom of speech in Japan except genitals so not really

It's an issue outside japan; if I federate with an instance that allows this content, Mastodon will mirror that media. While in Japan certain images might be legal, in my country they are very much a greyzone I don't want to risk as administrator.

Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

#75

Post by mdszy »

sgt wrote: post #32
throwawaysea wrote: post #15

What’s the point of Mastodon given the creators are against free speech and for censorship along ideological lines? I don’t see a remaining value proposition for end users.

If let's say Stormfront.org wanted to create their own Mastodon instance spreading their thoughts, they'd be free to do so. I'm sure the Mastodon creators wouldn't like it, but they'd have to ideologically support the very idea of allowing them this, as it comes down to free speech.

[flagged]

Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

#76

Post by dgellow »

simias wrote: post #61
young_unixer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I left Mastodon because the big "traditional"/sanctioned instances started banning other instances they didn't like, specifically Gab (instance full of right-wing people that allows basically anything that isn't illegal). I had high hopes for Mastodon but whatever, this whole social network thing isn't worth the trouble. Now HN and Youtube are the only websites I visit for entertainment.

I don't understand this mindset at all. It's not so much "I want to be able to say whatever I want", it's "I want everybody to listen to whatever I say". Go post edgy xenophobic stuff in your dedicated online community if you like it so much but stop acting surprised when other communities want nothing to do with you.

I believe that the issue discussed is more about mods having that control instead of the user itself. Not about the fact that everybody should listen to everything.

I understand that the question is: should the mod define who “the community” the community can connect with, or not?

Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

#77

Post by jack1243star »

mdszy wrote: post #72
jack1243star wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you know about this, you should consider that mastodon.social acts as an example instance. This effectively made blocking Pawoo and a few other instances the norm. There was a block-list circulating around, and if you do not block every instance on the list, your instance is misogynist, pedophile and far-right.

As someone who actually administers a Mastodon instance, this is absolutely not the case and is a complete exaggeration.

I was referring to toot.cafe's block list, which I saw a lot of instances blindly followed. (I had my own instance)

Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

#78

Post by M2Ys4U »

From the Mastodon creator:

>For once am not happy about Mastodon being on the HN frontpage. Someone submitted a work-in-progress pull request there. Half the comments are circlejerking about free speech as always, the other half gives opinions without understanding the context of the feature (which is not surprising given that it's a work-in-progress pull request on GitHub and not a goddamn press release).

https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/104233739773528179

Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

#79

Post by Hitton »

>An additional layer on top of it is so-called message franking, which allows encrypted messages to be reported to content moderators without compromising keys or message contents ahead of time while also preventing fake reports.

That sounds like the encryption isn't deniable. Personally I would prefer deniable encryption to ability to report wrongthink.

Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API

#80

Post by mdszy »

jack1243star wrote: post #77
mdszy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who actually administers a Mastodon instance, this is absolutely not the case and is a complete exaggeration.

I was referring to toot.cafe's block list, which I saw a lot of instances blindly followed. (I had my own instance)

"Blindly followed"? Or "Trusted the administration decsisions of those with similar views, and decided to follow their lead"?
Post reply on HN