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

Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse

privacy.thenexus.today

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 458 posts

Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse

#21

Post by ollien »

smoldesu wrote: post #13
ollien wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't use Threads, when they eventually add ActivityPub support, Mastodon users' data will inevitably be harvested. Instance admins have been signing a pact[1] to defederate with Meta for this reason, in addition to the fact that they don't trust Meta to moderate their instance well enough for it to be safe to federate with. [1] https://fedipact.online/

What stops them from harvesting Mastodon users' data after they're defederated?

I mean, I guess nothing, they could absolutely still scrape data, but that's much more likely to be noticed (rather than sucking in data as part of product functionality), and is a higher barrier to entry.

Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse

#23

Post by bobobob420 »

seattle_spring wrote: post #19
bobobob420 wrote: post #10

not a problem for 99.99 percent of people.

So... Still a problem for 700,000 people. Got it

the only problem is lack of critical thinking and victimization. You're joining a centralized netowrk its pretty obvious.

Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse

#24

Post by PaulHoule »

turnsout wrote: post #6
crooked-v wrote: post #3

"Decentralized access for everyone, unless it gets popular enough that somebody actually wants to interop with it" I understand the Meta hate, but joining a very explicitly public and intentionally republishable service and then being unhappy that your data is public and intentionally republishable is bizarre to me.

Yeah, this article reads more like a critique of the way ActivityPub and Mastodon work. None of this is particular to Meta.

The odd thing is that even the biggest fedi promoters don't seem to get it.

I thought "mastodon.social" was based in Germany, heart of GDPR country but there is no consent theater, no harassment by cookie popups, certainly no controls over data.

I really don't mind, but there is some serious cognitive dissonance there.

Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse

#25

Post by tredre3 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #4

Hunting down your personal details and publishing them is a crime¹, isn't it? 1 - I mean on the US where Meta really cares about. It's probably one on most countries where Meta has revenue, but that won't send anybody to jail.

> Hunting down your personal details and publishing them is a crime¹, isn't it?

It's a crime to obtain public data published on a public network built on a public protocol explicitly designed to share data? Isn't that the whole raison-d'être of mastodon?

Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse

#26

Post by andybak »

soligern wrote: post #5

What an asinine concern. Don’t want your data on threads? Don’t use threads.

I know replying with "did you actually read the article?" is explicitly forbidden on HN but is there an exception for cases where the person who didn't read the article uses a word like "asinine" in their dismissive reply?

Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse

#27

Post by PaulHoule »

ollien wrote: post #11
soligern wrote: post #5

What an asinine concern. Don’t want your data on threads? Don’t use threads.

Even if you don't use Threads, when they eventually add ActivityPub support, Mastodon users' data will inevitably be harvested. Instance admins have been signing a pact[1] to defederate with Meta for this reason, in addition to the fact that they don't trust Meta to moderate their instance well enough for it to be safe to federate with. [1] https://fedipact.online/

I find it hard to believe they are really going to join the Fedi. With 100 million users on Threads and maybe 2 million on the Fedi, how could Meta possibly benefit? Federating could bring them trouble but no benefit.

Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse

#28

Post by ldehaan »

dnissley wrote: post #17
crooked-v wrote: post #3

"Decentralized access for everyone, unless it gets popular enough that somebody actually wants to interop with it" I understand the Meta hate, but joining a very explicitly public and intentionally republishable service and then being unhappy that your data is public and intentionally republishable is bizarre to me.

This reaction has shades of nimbyism: Yes we care about climate change + housing affordability + are in favor of increasing immigration. No we can't have those evil developers building big apartment buildings in my neighborhood! How dare you insinuate these things are related in any way!

[dead]

Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse

#29

Post by the_gipsy »

crooked-v wrote: post #3

"Decentralized access for everyone, unless it gets popular enough that somebody actually wants to interop with it" I understand the Meta hate, but joining a very explicitly public and intentionally republishable service and then being unhappy that your data is public and intentionally republishable is bizarre to me.

They're not unhappy about their data being intentionally republishable. C'mon. On the contrary, they are saying that when the product gets successful, they will pull the rug. Like facebook did before, and like twitter did with the API and now again.

Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse

#30

Post by GeekyBear »

crooked-v wrote: post #3

"Decentralized access for everyone, unless it gets popular enough that somebody actually wants to interop with it" I understand the Meta hate, but joining a very explicitly public and intentionally republishable service and then being unhappy that your data is public and intentionally republishable is bizarre to me.

> joining a very explicitly public and intentionally republishable service and then being unhappy that your data is public

Comparing the sheer amount of data that Meta/Facebook vacuums up to the privacy practices of similar apps is instructive.

https://www.wired.com/story/meta-twitter-threads-bluesky-spi...

Post reply on HN