11–20 of 26 posts
yeah this is not a great way of doing things (even for solo devs)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The post states clearly that the foreign server only gets private posts if one of that server’s users is authorized to read the posts. How else do you expect it to work?
Either encrypt it such that only the authorized user can read it, or require the authorized user to retrieve it directly. Or don't lead users to expect that you're offering any privacy. From the user's point of view, authorizing some other user to read something doesn't mean authorizing whoever runs that user's instance to read it. If your protocol has an architectural problem with that, it means you designed your pr…
> From the user's point of view, authorizing some other user to read something
You keep using the singular "user", but the posts in question are not messages between one user and one other user but rather "followers only", such that anyone who follows the account is authorized to read the post.
> doesn't mean authorizing whoever runs that user's instance to read it.
That wasn't even the issue.
This would be solved with encrypted messages. I'm sure dansup can figure this one out, we just need keypairs at the user level.
This would be solved with encrypted messages. I'm sure dansup can figure this one out, we just need keypairs at the user level.
wait so if you have 10k followers you’re proposing to encrypt every post 10k times? (we’re talking about posts not DMs)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wait so if you have 10k followers you’re proposing to encrypt every post 10k times? (we’re talking about posts not DMs)
Oh! This is about posts! Sure, otherwise it's not private really.
This would be solved with encrypted messages. I'm sure dansup can figure this one out, we just need keypairs at the user level.
wait so if you have 10k followers you’re proposing to encrypt every post 10k times? (we’re talking about posts not DMs)
I mean, yes. Why you’re sending a “private” post to ten thousand people is another question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wait so if you have 10k followers you’re proposing to encrypt every post 10k times? (we’re talking about posts not DMs)
> if you have 10k followers you’re proposing to encrypt every post 10k times? I mean, yes. Why you’re sending a “private” post to ten thousand people is another question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you have 10k followers you’re proposing to encrypt every post 10k times? I mean, yes. Why you’re sending a “private” post to ten thousand people is another question.
that sounds like a UX nightmare, what happens when you approve a new follower? do you encrypt your entire post history for them? how long would that take ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you have 10k followers you’re proposing to encrypt every post 10k times? I mean, yes. Why you’re sending a “private” post to ten thousand people is another question.
that sounds like a UX nightmare, what happens when you approve a new follower? do you encrypt your entire post history for them? how long would that take ?
Sure.
> how long would that take ?
Shouldn’t take THAT long. This is the cost of privacy.