[deleted]
Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
261–270 of 458 posts
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
Threads has 100m total users (that number is based on userid badges on Instagram afaik). The fediverse has somewhere around 10-13m total users, about 8-10m of those are on the main Mastodon network, and around 2-4m MAU. It's hard to pin these down precisely because different counters disagree (it's hard), but if you're going to take the most optimistic number from Meta (the only one you'll ever see), you should take…
This is indeed true and we will have to see how the numbers settle as we go along. However I would be surprised if Meta doesn’t continue to possess well above a supermajority of the userbase until another large corporation embraces ActivityPub.
>However I would be surprised if Meta doesn’t continue to possess well above a supermajority of the userbase until another large corporation embraces ActivityPub.
That's likely true. But that doesn't force me to interact with that user base (I don't interact with them now and nothing of value is lost, so why should I start?) in the Fediverse.
If I had an Instagram/Threads account, I would be forced to do so. I don't, so I'm not.
So many folks here and elsewhere complain about the garbage in their "feeds" from the centralized "social media" sites, but (apparently) don't realize they don't have to see that garbage, or advertising or posts that are about/from topics/persons they don't care about.
And so the question I'll ask you is: Why should I care how many Threads users exist? I have no interest in interacting with them and am not forced to do so.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> So short of attaching licenses to every post you make I think you have this backwards. Full copyright protection is the default for all content not licensed otherwise. Publishing does not put content into a "public domain" status. Social media platforms already have strong legal terms around every piece of content. If you violate that license, platforms may choose to fuck you up. E.g.: https://www.malwarebytes.com/…
I understand that generally you retain the copyright to your works implicitly and that you don't have to actively file for copyright in order to gain the protection of copyright law.
I'm arguing that it's pretty preposterous for a global decentralized federated social platform to assume some authority (enforced by whom, that'd require a central group of enforcers) over the licensing of posts on the network by invoking US copyright law. Conceptually it doesn't make any sense. So the only thing Mastodon can do is at a protocol/code level require that public content flowing through the pipes be licensed for public consumption (copying and distribution) on the network, the colloquial "public domain".
> It would be easy enough
I can't really imagine the matrix of which nodes can federate with which others based on the default content license they impose on posted content. "Oh you can only view my post if you use this server over here because it uses a compatible downstream licensing configuration." Would that really "work"?
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only entity that could realistically tell us how Meta linked the profile to that person's real name is Meta, and they aren't likely to share that information — so it's not exactly surprising that the tweet lacks detail on the matter.
Phone numbers and recovery email addresses?
[deleted]
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#265"Privacy" and "fediverse" are like water and oil: they don't mix. Meta would have no more (extra) access to Fedi posts than an large Mastodon instance like Mastodon.social would have.
> "Privacy" and "fediverse" are like water and oil: they don't mix.
I'm not sure I agree, privacy can be achieved via anonymity. Use a VPN, block cookies, change usernames, etc
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#266Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#267If 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…
> Defederating from Meta as a solution is stupid One question I've had for fediverse people is how you prevent a federated system from centralizing. I am legitimately curious. Email is often given as an example, but imo that a perfect example of a decentralized system BECOMING centralized. Sure, other players exist but the vast majority of people are on gmail, apple, or outlook (which is much smaller than the other t…
For the moment it cannot be too centralized since Mastodon being the main software becomes prohibitively expensive to run.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#268Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#269So I was going to try threads but can't figure out how. I'm not interested in using a phone. I'm on a computer. Is there no web version?
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So short of attaching licenses to every post you make I think you have this backwards. Full copyright protection is the default for all content not licensed otherwise. Publishing does not put content into a "public domain" status. Social media platforms already have strong legal terms around every piece of content. If you violate that license, platforms may choose to fuck you up. E.g.: https://www.malwarebytes.com/…
I understand that generally you retain the copyright to your works implicitly and that you don't have to actively file for copyright in order to gain the protection of copyright law. I'm arguing that it's pretty preposterous for a global decentralized federated social platform to assume some authority (enforced by whom, that'd require a central group of enforcers) over the licensing of posts on the network by invokin…
[dead]