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

51–60 of 458 posts

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

#51

Post by Modified3019 »

https://news.yahoo.com/teen-mom-plead-guilty-abortion-230802...

>A Nebraska woman has pleaded guilty to helping her daughter have a medication abortion last year. The legal proceeding against her hinged on Facebook's decision to provide authorities with private messages between that mother and her 17-year-old daughter discussing the latter's plans to terminate her pregnancy.

If you have information you don't want others to know, then don't tell your secrets to a multi-billion dollar pseudo-governmental organization that has even less data collection protections than the governments it serves. There's more you should do, but that's a big one.

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

#52

Post by kazinator »

notatoad wrote: post #44

>Mastodon (and most other fediverse software) wasn't designed with privacy and user safety in mind 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 threa…

If ActivityPub and Mastodon were designed with privacy in mind, Facebook/Meta wouldn't touch it with ten foot pole.

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

#53

Post by Nextgrid »

GeekyBear wrote: post #30
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...

IMO the problem with Facebook is the private data they vacuum. If you publicly post the data on an open network, I see no problem with them taking it.

In practical terms, Facebook is actually quite tame compared to any other malicious actor who can get the same data. FB just wants it for ads and processes it in aggregate (most is never seen by a human), while other malicious actors might actually target you personally.

The main issue is that you shouldn't post anything on a public, unauthenticated network that you wouldn't want random, potentially-hostile actors to see.

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

#54

Post by PaulHoule »

ollien wrote: post #37
PaulHoule wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I could definitely see a benefit for them from a legislative perspective. By federating with other networks, they're able to signal to lawmakers that they're not _really_ a monopoly, they're willing to pay-ball with others. Also, isn't the 100M user figure disputed, because it's counting existing Instagram users or some such?

It is real sign ups but it is very easy to sign up. Just because you signed up doesn't mean you're going to use it regularly.

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

#55

Post by 1970-01-01 »

nemacol wrote: post #16
1970-01-01 wrote: post #7

The best way to handle it is to make a "minimum viable" account and do absolutely nothing with it, ever, except login and logout annually. Set up a spam filter to trash every single notice from the company.

Can you help me understand why this is preferable to never joining in the first place? What is the goal? Controlling the entry for my email/auth of choice?

It is a mitigation for identity theft and slander.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26931894

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

#56

Post by kazinator »

Dma54rhs wrote: post #14

What's the point of joining a decentralized federated platform if you don't want other instances or people to see what you post? Meta scraping your name and doing other shenanigans is a different subject and obviously bad, but the rest is like complaining joining a public torrent tracker and being mad about leaking your ip address to its peers.

What's the point of joining a decentralized, open-source federated platform if you don't want Facebook to collect information about you and track you online, even though you aren't a Facebook user?

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

#57

Post by PaulHoule »

notatoad wrote: post #34
PaulHoule wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The EU digital markets act will require "gatekeepers" like meta to provide some form of interoperability or open access. Supporting activitypub would be a way to satisfy that requirement.

But Mastodon can't possibly comply with GDPR the way it is organized. I mean Heavens you can use it without clicking on a cookie popup, they probably owe $70 billion dollars just for all the people who haven't seen a cookie popup already.

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

#59

Post by AndyMcConachie »

In theory it shouldn't be hard to block Threads. If they're only using one domain for all their users it's trivial to block it.

But privacy is not the issue with Threads. The issue with Threads is that they're going to attempt to destroy the Fediverse through standard Embrace, Extend, Destroy tactics.

You see this with Bluesky as well. The point is to interoperate when it's in your interests and then break interoperability when you have enough of the audience. Thus, thereby capturing the lion's share of the audience.

Just wait. Threads will soon have a 'new feature' that only works with Threads and that does not work on other Fediverse nodes. Then they'll try and poison the standards bodies working on ActivityPub. They could increase the velocity of new 'features' to ActivityPub so fast that unpaid OSS developers couldn't keep up. Like Google and that cartel do with browsers. Eventually Meta and maybe a couple other large players will control the standards, or atleast make it obtuse enough to prevent new entrants. This playbook is tried and true.

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

#60

Post by zzzeek »

cdot2 wrote: post #40

[flagged]

what an ignorant take. Social media promotion of "hated" groups can be plausibly blamed for mass murder, including a literal genocide for which Facebook is now being sued for £150bn right now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-...

Post reply on HN