Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
This feels like another instance of seeking a technical solution to a legal problem
Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
101–110 of 458 posts
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#102If you have personal information you do not wish bad actors to see, do not publish it using an open protocol explicitly designed to allow anyone to read said information.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…
I think the point they're making is that Meta is in a special place, where by using their unusually vast amounts of personal data and photos, they are somehow (?) going to dox anonymous users by publishing their real names, based on matching their profiles in some way. At least that is the implication based on the quoted tweet right at the top of the post (which is lacking any real detail how exactly Meta got this pe…
Aren't there laws against that? are there even allow to build internal links between FB/IG accounts without user consent?
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#103What'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
#104Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Owning the vast majority of the fediverse userbase will cause them to have a large amount of power to compel users or servers to do whatever they want. What do you do when Facebook implements a new feature and all of your followers complain that your using a Mastodon server instead of joining Threads that has this feature they want? You either go against your entire community or let Meta takeover your account.
As such, the resolution is to not let anyone have this much power. It being Meta makes it easier to hate on them, but no single server should own the vast majority of the network, let alone (100M / (100M + 2M + 1M)) = 97% of it [1].
[1] Threads has 100M users and is rising fast, Mastodon was recently stated to have 2M active users, the rest of the fediverse can be estimated to be, say, 1M. As such, Threads has about 97% of the userbase.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#105The problem I see with Threads isn't what Meta will do with fediverse data, it's the power they have with owning 97% of the entire fediverse network [1]. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Owning the vast majority of the fediverse userbase will cause them to have a large amount of power to compel users or servers to do whatever they want. What do you do when Facebook implements a new feature and all of your followers compl…
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point they're making is that Meta is in a special place, where by using their unusually vast amounts of personal data and photos, they are somehow (?) going to dox anonymous users by publishing their real names, based on matching their profiles in some way. At least that is the implication based on the quoted tweet right at the top of the post (which is lacking any real detail how exactly Meta got this pe…
> they are somehow (?) going to dox anonymous users by publishing their real names, based on matching their profiles in some way. Aren't there laws against that? are there even allow to build internal links between FB/IG accounts without user consent?
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#107https://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 oth…
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thread users are today's aol users. Better to keep them out of areas where real conversations happen
Then I fail to see the issue since "real conversations" aren't happening on the fediverse either.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#109'I had a FB account as Mistress Matisse, but FB scraped my legal name from somewhere else and then changed my displayed NAME on my account without notice/consent.' Who gave FB permission to conflate two different identities?
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#110https://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 oth…
[flagged]