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

271–280 of 458 posts

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

#271

Post by notatoad »

chc wrote: post #89
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…

To be clear, Twitter also shares the list of users who like a post, and people generally seem to view this as a good feature rather than an invasive one, so it makes sense that Mastodon implemented it as well.

twitter shares that while making it immediately clear that the information is public. when you like a post you know your name is going to show up on the list of people who liked it, because the "like" button and the list are right beside each other. that's consent.

lemmy does not make it in any way clear that upvotes and downvotes are public information.

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

#272

Post by oddevan »

lkjdsklf wrote: post #142
kazinator wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

if you're at all concerned about privacy, the fediverse is not for you. It is anti-privacy by design. Once you've posted something to it, you have absolutely no control over who has that data and what they do with it. That's the fundamental design of the system. Complaining about meta potentially ingesting all data from the fediverse comes off as a bit naive. Meta is the least of the privacy concerns on the fediverse…

I think this is the disconnection with most of these conversations, or at least what's keeping me from understanding them.

I think we might need to be better about communicating this to new users: once something leaves the server, it is out of control.

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

#273

Post by nobody9999 »

turnsout wrote: post #187
ipaddr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thread users are today's aol users. Better to keep them out of areas where real conversations happen

You are 100% right that Threads users are today's AOL users, and that's a good thing. If Threads actually federates, it will be another Eternal September [0], and we need that for ActivityPub to truly thrive. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

> If Threads actually federates, it will be another Eternal September [0], and we need that for ActivityPub to truly thrive.

Please define "thrive" in this context. Do you mean DAU/MAUs? I know, perhaps, a couple hundred people and respect the opinions/ideas of perhaps a few dozen others I don't know.

Those are the only people I care about interacting with and I can interact with them just fine without Meta's "offerings."

AFAICT, ActivityPub is thriving. It has an active user base, is under active development and doesn't "productize" its users.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I just don't understand how you're defining "thrive" in this context.

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

#275

Post by cmrdporcupine »

foobarbecue wrote: post #269

So 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?

There is no web version. Threads can be viewed at a URL, but you can't join, post, or browse via web.

Amazing, eh?

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

#276

Post by Tijdreiziger »

dcow wrote: post #263
wpietri wrote: post #238

Earlier 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…

Mastodon-the-software doesn't have to do anything. Mastodon instances have to choose whether to block Threads or not.

Of course there is no 'central enforcement', that would be at odds with the very principle of federated social media (namely, that instance admins are free to choose how they run their own instance).

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

#277

Post by cmrdporcupine »

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 think it won't happen at all, for most of the reasons you gave and more. The feature will never launch. Either because negotiations with various Mastodon instances just falter, or because Meta just loses interest, or both.

Ultimately I think their play here is they want to build their social graph and interaction model around users that are not on their network right now. Every time you boost or share something that came out of Threads, they'll learn something about you -- a non-Meta user -- that they couldn't get just from mining public content. But I think they'll find they're actually not interested much in that data, that its value isn't high enough to justify the hassle.

I just think it's a tempest in a teacup and by the autumn when it's rumoured to be supposedly launching, we'll just stop hearing about it. Or there'll be a trial for a bit and then it'll just get unceremoniously dropped.

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

#278

Post by c0balt »

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…

It's entertaining from an outsiders perspective. On the one hand it's public content for everyone. However onnthe other hand ithey desire the public content to be restricted making it by definition not public, i.e., private anymore.

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

#279

Post by boyter »

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…

I totally agree.

Using a protocol designed to distribute content with the expectation that you remain in control of it is asinine. If you really want to control it, either allow list federate with only instances you know are in the same circle (IE make your own smaller fediverse), or move to a private forum.

I argued with the Fediverse about this several months ago, and raised all of the same problems in the article with them. Only to be shouted at, doxed, abused, insulted and attacked. I still think that what I experienced would be enough to drive some people to self harm. The level of toxic interactions on the fedivese was the worst I have ever experienced on the internet.

As such I find the fact that there is a freakout over what has been predicted multiple times hilarious. I welcome Meta joining. The sooner people on the fedivese grow up and realize the reality of what is coming the better.

I really like ActivityPub. I really like the fedivese idea. However when you visit you rapidly discover its full of the really annoying people from twitter, and people with "ex tumblr poster" in their bios.

Forget where this came from but it sums it up perfectly.

    Fediverse: We are open for federation and you to join!
    Meta: Ok here is what we are doing with instagram.
    Fediverse: Not that kind of open!

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

#280

Post by boyter »

nickthegreek wrote: post #42
zimpenfish wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically addressed in the article. "Even if I only make followers-only posts, which aren't public and can't be boosted, if somebody who's following me replies, any of their followers on Threads will see my account name and instance" and also "If somebody on another instance who follows me boosts one of my public or unlisted posts, people on Threads who are following them may be able to see everything I've said in…

Isnt this a core way that ActivityPub works though? Like this isn't a Meta issue. It is the technical functionality of the protocol these federated services are built on. If you transmit data using the AP protocol, your content isnt private.

Correct.

A lot of the protections in ActivityPub are listed in the spec as "should" not "must". For example edits and deletes.

I think it should be assumed that when you publish content over activitypub it is now public. Any exception that it is private is asinine since you are literally publishing it to other servers.

Post reply on HN