41–50 of 458 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the only problem is lack of critical thinking and victimization. You're joining a centralized netowrk its pretty obvious.
Isn't ActivityPub specifically about decentralisation?
What an asinine concern. Don’t want your data on threads? Don’t use threads.
Specifically addressed in the article. "Even if I only make followers-only posts, which aren't public and can't be boosted, if somebody who's following me replies, any of their followers on Threads will see my account name and instance" and also "If somebody on another instance who follows me boosts one of my public or unlisted posts, people on Threads who are following them may be able to see everything I've said in…
"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.
this is the real problem. Mastodon and lemmy share way more information than they actually need to (like lemmy shares a list of usernames who upvoted or downvoted a post, not just a count), and if you're using one of those services you should expect that all your data and interactions are public. that's the actual threat here, not the possibility that facebook might suck up that data. Blocking Threads from federating is just a short-term patch over mastodon's bad privacy controls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
There are various processes at Meta that do require identification to be submitted and in some cases that information will be published. For example, to be verified on Instagram you must have your name be published. Likewise, certain Facebook pages must publish their operators identities.
Most likely the person in question submitted their identity documents to Facebook (perhaps their account got locked) and they didn’t realise they were agreeing to that information being put on their profile.
The concern is valid — Facebook has information users might not want public — but the cause isn’t nefarious. Facebook is not finding an anonymous sex workers identity and then intentionally outing them.
It does look like something idealistically-minded early techies would justifiably find really cool.
It may indeed be desirable for, say, Dutch government (and perhaps any government that wants to be transparent).
However, I’d argue it may be from suboptimal to harmful for regular people.
Regular people may have to worry about future governments, which may or may not end up less transparent to hostile towards them, as well as other powerful adversaries. Regular people may want to be careful and value features like transience, privacy, and plausible deniability.
Perhaps we can do better and come up with a protocol that combines openness and those values. Whether Facebook enters the Fediverse with its new product or not, ActivityPub in its current shape and implementation seems to be a liability.
If you have personal information you do not wish bad actors to see, do not publish it using an open protocol explicitly designed to allow anyone to read said information. Defederating from Meta as a solution is stupid - Meta can (and will if they actually care enough) just rejoin undercover. Furthermore, when it comes to the fediverse, Meta is actually one of the more trusted actors compared to whatever else is on th…
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extingu...