Beyond copyright, why wouldn't restrictive licensing fill that need? ex: by accessing content on this server, you agree to the terms of service..blah blah ?
Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
301–310 of 458 posts
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
This gets you right back to the issue of having to transmit licenses with all content. Which is fine - this can absolutely be a thing which exists within the protocol.
But then people are suddenly going to find they don't get the impact they want either: because the immediate outcome is simply going to be "license for public distribution or we'll reject your content" because everything else is too much hassle.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#303Earlier 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…
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…
This still doesn't make sense though: the reality is that your content will be private right up till someone reposts it publicly. Or saves the image, recompresses, posts it to reddit, reddit posts it to ActivityPub etc. etc.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#304Earlier 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
Your solution to private companies not broadcasting what you want is for the government to take the companies over and then dictate what they broadcast? Then what? Anything goes? There are plenty of sites that show you what happens when there is no form of moderation at all and they turn into complete cesspools.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#305If 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 - Meta can (and will if they actually care enough) just rejoin undercover. I agree with the rest of your post but I suspect that in this instance Meta, a large public company, that might leery about doing something that potentially embarassing. But your basic point remains true. A wide variety of companies, many bad actor, are going to be scraping, processing and connect…
>I agree with the rest of your post but I suspect that in this instance Meta, a large public company, that might leery about doing something that potentially embarassing.
I wouldn't say that the company directly responsible for the state of online discourse today as being leery of doing anything.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-...
It has published details of a vast experiment in which it manipulated information posted on 689,000 users' home pages and found it could make people feel more positive or negative through a process of "emotional contagion".
...
One test reduced users' exposure to their friends' "positive emotional content", resulting in fewer positive posts of their own. Another test reduced exposure to "negative emotional content" and the opposite happened.Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#306Earlier 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…
> 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.
You mean like rolling back Roe v. Wade?[1]
You mean like trying to overthrow an election?[2]
Denying access to gender-affirming care for adults?[3]
What exactly do you think people are being unfairly obsessed over? Because there's a reason people follow politics: it's because politics, and because we're in a democracy - public opinion and discourse - has direct, kinetic effects on people's lives.
This is a real cheap opinion to have provided you're never weighed down with having to engage with the content and stick to vague insinuation. The fiction of "both sides".
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abor...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/anti-trans-...
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#307>Trans people at risk of being targeted by groups like Libs of Tik Tok
It's my understanding that Libs of Tik Tok simply reposts public videos. Say you manage to find a way to block them specifically from seeing your content what's to stop another account springing up and doing the same thing. The only option is to keep your content among friends. But then you have another trust model where your friend could be the next Libs of Tik Tok.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#308Earlier 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…
Mostly agreed, though this is more accurate about ActivityPub than federated stuff in general. There are privacy focused things, they just tend to lean closer to being fully decentralized (or at least feel like it).
ActivityPub, and Mastodon in particular, is very public-oriented though yeah. The feature-set and discovery stuff is pretty much inherently un-protectable.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#309Earlier 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…
I can't believe people who are into decentralization and federation now essentially want to reinvent DRM!
Why not? These are separate concepts.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 - wh…
It's not 100M readers that makes it a public square. It's 100M writers.
Like a shopping mall, the classic US example of a privately owned public square