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

251–260 of 458 posts

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

#251

Post by 8organicbits »

Nextgrid wrote: post #39

If you have personal information you do not wish bad actors to see, do not publish it using an open protocol explicitly designed to allow anyone to read said information.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…

> wasn't considered an issue before Meta came along

This is false, there's been frequent discussion around how indexing and search should be performed in a privacy preserving way. Meta is just the latest concern.

[1] https://www.anildash.com/2023/01/16/a-fediverse-search/

[2] https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2018/07/cage-the-mastodon/

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

#252

Post by mcv »

dcow wrote: post #203
Nextgrid wrote: post #39

If you have personal information you do not wish bad actors to see, do not publish it using an open protocol explicitly designed to allow anyone to read said information.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…

Yeah I stopped reading the article once it mentioned people getting annoyed and wanting to control who sees their public content. You don't get to make that call. The community doesn't get to make that call. The protocol makes that call and the protocol allows anybody to view stuff you post publicly. You don't get to say "I publish this but Meta can't view it". Not even legally you don't. That's not privacy and no am…

Controlling who can see your content is actually a very reasonable feature; some things are not meant for everybody, but just for the people who actually know you. But it's not a use case that ActivityPub was designed for. Google+ had a really nice feature where you could easily control who can see your post. Diapora has something similar, but considering it's federated, I'm not sure if you can really guarantee it.

I think the only way to guarantee this control in a federated system, is to encrypt everything that's not completely public. If everybody has a public key, you can use that to encrypt the secret key. It's a hassle, but I think this would work.

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

#253

Post by no_wizard »

dahwolf wrote: post #222

My prediction on how this goes down... Meta has zero interest in ActivityPub or the Fediverse, a tiny speckle of users hostile to them. In less than a week, they've created an "instance" 50 times the size of all of Mastodon and the rest of the fediverse combined. The projection/goal is to grow towards 1B MAU, which would make it 500 times larger than all of the rest of the fediverse. Why would Meta possibly care abou…

I wonder if they'll surprise us all a little and allow people to create - tightly controlled mind you - personalized fedi instances for things like "fan experience", but from the Threads app perspective it allows you to jump "portal to portal" if you will, without leaving the app, so it feels seamless. This would open other monetization verticals for Meta via platform creators etc. It'd also give you data carve outs that let Meta see what the most popular verticals are and they can sell specialized targeted ads against that, which would likely fetch a bigger premium and provide more useful analytics.

Also worth consideration: They could federate your Facebook feed in the future too.

It may not be so much supporting the protocol from the outside as its worth doing from the "inside".

EDIT: I'm not talking about full blown customization here, just enough that allows creators to make their direct profile feed look different from the standard app, maybe have targeted links or a special background color etc. Simple but differentiating things.

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

#254

Post by chongli »

not2b wrote: post #234
yodsanklai wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The terms of service on Facebook require that real names be used, and anonymous users aren't permitted. I know, many ignore that, but they occasionally demand a user's real name or proof that an unusual name is a real name. Instagram used to have different rules, but they seem to be trying to integrate everything.

I think they’re talking about Meta doxing anonymous users on Mastodon. That is, by having Threads join the fediverse they can pull in information about anonymous users on other Mastodon servers and match it up with Facebook and Instagram accounts, linking them and potentially unmasking them.

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

#255

Post by echelon »

dcow wrote: post #203
Nextgrid wrote: post #39

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…

Yeah I stopped reading the article once it mentioned people getting annoyed and wanting to control who sees their public content. You don't get to make that call. The community doesn't get to make that call. The protocol makes that call and the protocol allows anybody to view stuff you post publicly. You don't get to say "I publish this but Meta can't view it". Not even legally you don't. That's not privacy and no am…

There's a portion of the far left and the up-and-coming gen-zalpha that takes on a dictatorial "censorship is okay for things we dislike" attitude. They don't realize that in the 90's and 00's free speech was a place of refuge for liberals to escape from evangelical attacks on everything from LGBT rights to Pokemon.

They also don't appreciate that the "come one and all" nature of the internet back then led to many people crossing the fences and experiencing viewpoints they'd never seen or heard before. This is an atmosphere we desperately need to return to.

Present day censorship, "gotcha" moderation, and algorithmic manipulation of emotion have led to hyper polarization. We should 1) deescalate the intrusion of these systems and remove them from our day-to-day experience and 2) reinforce the fundamental rights we all deserve.

Social media networks with over 100,000,000 daily active users should not be considered as "private companies with a right to free speech through censorship". They are effectively public squares that we have all elected and chosen to share. Right and left alike.

Public companies tend to censor to protect profits, but small individuals (such as Reddit moderators and Fediverse instance maintainers) do it from either a position of laziness or political retribution. The latter is a form of disgust and hatred for fellow humans and should be called out as such, even if the other party is guilty of the same.

I've seen the free speech argument twisted into "right wing figures trying to force their views into everyone's feed", but that need not be the case. There are tools for individuals to block. And if we'd finally divorce ourselves from platforms and federation and escape to true p2p social networking, we'd all have maximum individual control: we could institute any blocking, boosting, ingestion, sharing, and ranking criteria we wanted. Many amongst the left obsesses over what the right is doing (and vice versa), which tells me people enjoy rubbernecking rather than tuning out. It's a game of "neener-neener" high school football rivalry.

But back to the core point - you shouldn't get to choose who people talk to if you're not a first party in that conversation. You shouldn't get to choose who can publish openly or who can read public broadcasts. If you want to keep your words private, share them in private. Your choices should be limited to blocking what you personally dislike at your own consumption level, and it should be that way for everyone. Because that's fair.

The pendulums of politics will swing. One day liberals will need the free speech refuge again. Preserve it now even if you want to get rid of it. Question yourself if you find yourself wanting to mute or persecute others. If you're angry with my words right now, please ask yourself why you want the other party to shut up.

I want to emphasize that I do not agree with the far right. But I will fight with my last breath to preserve the right to free speech for us all. If we lose it, we will slide into tyrannical oppression from those in power.

I wish we could all just get along. I know that's not going to happen in my lifetime, but we should make best attempts at deescalation and maintaining open communication with one another. Conversation can be a bridge.

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

#256

Post by giaour »

dcow wrote: post #224
Guvante wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your understanding is flawed. Copyright is 100% okay with transitively controlling production of content. After all how else would you describe someone allowing Netflix to stream your content? You can't restream Netflix and Netflix is restricted on how it can stream to you. Both rooted in the original Copyright protection and the licenses to content given out by intermediaries. Most posting platforms give themselves…

It's not that simple. If I sell you a book, I cannot place a restriction on that sale saying you can't resell that book (first sale doctrine). You're allowed to do that because you own the copy of the book. You can't copy the book and sell it, because you don't own the copyright , but you can sell the original copy, show it to whomever you want, etc. It's not that "copyright is okay with transitive licensing" but mor…

> but you can sell the original copy, show it to whomever you want, etc

The license associated with physical media does have restrictions. You can't mount a public display of the work without acquiring a separate license. E.g., you can't buy a DVD of a movie and then screen it for a group (outside of what's permitted under fair use). If you sell tickets to that screening or intersperse ads, thereby infringing copyright for commercial gain, you're in even hotter water.

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

#257

Post by justcool393 »

dcow wrote: post #224
Guvante wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your understanding is flawed. Copyright is 100% okay with transitively controlling production of content. After all how else would you describe someone allowing Netflix to stream your content? You can't restream Netflix and Netflix is restricted on how it can stream to you. Both rooted in the original Copyright protection and the licenses to content given out by intermediaries. Most posting platforms give themselves…

It's not that simple. If I sell you a book, I cannot place a restriction on that sale saying you can't resell that book (first sale doctrine). You're allowed to do that because you own the copy of the book. You can't copy the book and sell it, because you don't own the copyright , but you can sell the original copy, show it to whomever you want, etc. It's not that "copyright is okay with transitive licensing" but mor…

> If you want to place downstream restrictions on your content then you have to license it (and get someone to agree to your license)

That's not how copyright works like... at all. HN needs a license to display your comment right now (see here: https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou). Copyright works by default (in the US) of being the most restricted. The first sale doctrine applies but online when you distribute something you're not making 1 copy.

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

#258

Post by nobody9999 »

nomel wrote: post #146
JohnFen wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meta is actually one of the more trusted actors compared to whatever else is on there - at least they're a known legal entity instead of some random. But they're a known entity with a long track record, which is how I know they can't be trusted.

But, you know the space they operate. That space is limited by profits, what their immense legal team allows, and their immense security team controls. The alternative is, literally, a complete stranger, with no track record, unknown motives, and (as the recent hacks showed) doesn't have the skillset to keep your information secure anyways.

>The alternative is, literally, a complete stranger, with no track record, unknown motives, and (as the recent hacks showed) doesn't have the skillset to keep your information secure anyways.

That's not the only alternative. Another is, literally, me, someone I know very well, with a lifetime track record that I'm intimately familiar with, known motives and the skillset to keep my information secure.

It's called "hosting your own instance."

And it doesn't stop me from following users on other instances, nor does it require me to accept the TOS of other instances either.

That said, I'm not interested in juicing my "follower" count or building/enhancing my "brand," nor am I interested in doing so for others.

That's the alternative. And when someone comes up with an AP hub that can interact with other AP instances like an email client (my Thunderbird[0] can talk smtp, pop3, IMap, xmpp, Matrix, nntp and more) that's a viable alternative for the hoi polloi. Until then, more technical folks like myself can just roll their own.

I don't really care what most other people say anyway, including (well, especially) "influencers", celebrities, politicians, advertisers and other scum of the earth.

So I'll just follow whoever I want to follow from my own AP instance. Or not, if I choose not to federate with other instances.

[0] https://www.thunderbird.net/

Edit: Added the missing link.

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

#259

Post by justsomeadvice0 »

echelon wrote: post #255
dcow wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I stopped reading the article once it mentioned people getting annoyed and wanting to control who sees their public content. You don't get to make that call. The community doesn't get to make that call. The protocol makes that call and the protocol allows anybody to view stuff you post publicly. You don't get to say "I publish this but Meta can't view it". Not even legally you don't. That's not privacy and no am…

There's a portion of the far left and the up-and-coming gen-zalpha that takes on a dictatorial "censorship is okay for things we dislike" attitude. They don't realize that in the 90's and 00's free speech was a place of refuge for liberals to escape from evangelical attacks on everything from LGBT rights to Pokemon. They also don't appreciate that the "come one and all" nature of the internet back then led to many pe…

> Social media networks with over 100,000,000 daily active users should not be considered as "private companies with a right to free speech through censorship". They are effectively public squares that we have all elected and chosen to share. Right and left alike.

Shouldn't this also apply to TV channels? Chat apps like iMessage? Popular newspapers, blogs, and email newsletters? And indeed, why stop at 100M DAUs - why not 10M, or 1M? The problem I expect is this path leads to the death of freedom of the press.

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

#260

Post by not2b »

chongli wrote: post #254
not2b wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terms of service on Facebook require that real names be used, and anonymous users aren't permitted. I know, many ignore that, but they occasionally demand a user's real name or proof that an unusual name is a real name. Instagram used to have different rules, but they seem to be trying to integrate everything.

I think they’re talking about Meta doxing anonymous users on Mastodon. That is, by having Threads join the fediverse they can pull in information about anonymous users on other Mastodon servers and match it up with Facebook and Instagram accounts, linking them and potentially unmasking them.

They could do that just as easily without federation (and in fact they already do: they've been found to create "shadow users" from people who aren't even Facebook/Instagram users from the tracking cookies they've gotten lots of sites to add, and they plug in all that info if that person later joins Facebook or Instagram).

I can't think of anything they can find out if federation is turned on that they can't find if federation is turned off. Even if there were some info that could only be obtained by being in the federation (and I can't think of anything but I might be wrong), that's easy enough: just create some small instances that don't identify as Meta or Threads and have the users of those instances follow people on all the large instances.

Post reply on HN