Live data from Hacker News

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

privacy.thenexus.today

371–380 of 458 posts

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

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker news is an algorithmically influenced discussion board, the comment voting system shared by both HN and reddit influences the way people conduct themselves, and not always for the better.

Usenet had no upvotes and still had plenty of flamethreads.

that doesn't mean that voting doesn't make the problem worse. And before eternal September, the internet was nerds, the "unpopular kids". When all the normies showed up, the incentives shifted.

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

#372

The problem I see with Threads isn't what Meta will do with fediverse data, it's the power they have with owning 97% of the entire fediverse network [1]. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Owning the vast majority of the fediverse userbase will cause them to have a large amount of power to compel users or servers to do whatever they want. What do you do when Facebook implements a new feature and all of your followers compl…

> As such, the resolution is to not let anyone have this much power.

That's not a resolution, that's a wish. But how could it be achieved though? In 6 months Threads could well have hundreds of millions of active users, the vast majority of whom probably won't care about the fediverse.

> What do you do when Facebook implements a new feature and all of your followers complain that your using a Mastodon server instead of joining Threads that has this feature they want?

Mastodon (and others) either have to compete or their users will be like the people reading email in emacs or vi (no offence intended)

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

#373

The problem I see with Threads isn't what Meta will do with fediverse data, it's the power they have with owning 97% of the entire fediverse network [1]. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Owning the vast majority of the fediverse userbase will cause them to have a large amount of power to compel users or servers to do whatever they want. What do you do when Facebook implements a new feature and all of your followers compl…

Maybe they are getting ahead of the Digital Markets Act by making Threads interoperable from the start ?

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

#374
post #100

https://news.yahoo.com/teen-mom-plead-guilty-abortion-230802... >A Nebraska woman has pleaded guilty to helping her daughter have a medication abortion last year. The legal proceeding against her hinged on Facebook's decision to provide authorities with private messages between that mother and her 17-year-old daughter discussing the latter's plans to terminate her pregnancy. If you have information you don't want oth…

I mean yeah, but also, the actual fault is on the side of people who literally voted for this. And campaigned for this. And spend years trying to put the right people on supreme court so that this happens.

The abortion in that case was sufficiently late term that it would have been illegal before Roe was overturned. It also would have been illegal in most of Europe, most of South America, and most of Asia.

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

#375
If Mastodon block Threads, I don't know what to think anymore. Mastodon should be open to all. That's the whole unique selling point, no federation from US companies etc.

This will make Mastodon pretty much useless if it can just block networks..

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

#376
post #263

Earlier 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…

> 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 Why is that not-an-entity the only thing you're considering as able to enforce copyright or otherwise check a platform for doing something legally dubious? > the colloquial "public domain". That is not what public d…

> That is not what public domain means.

FWIW, I've had a discussion with a British lawyer, IIRC British law has no specific term for what is named "public domain" in US copyright law, and the term "public domain" in UK law means "the public can access it".

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

#378
If a message is public then I shouldn't care if Meta has access to it or not; they can access it if they want to do. However, if I wish to send a private message to someone, even on a different server, it should not have to go through Meta to do so (unless the recipient is on Meta, although then the sender should be made aware of that before sending the message).

I don't use Fediverse nor Meta/Threads, but I write stuff that is public and anyone can view it, or private which only the recipient should read, like anything else, whether I post on Hacker News, or on Usenet, or on a public IRC channel, or whatever else it might be. (Some people don't like public IRC logs, but if it is a public channel then I would prefer that it does have logs; fortunately some IRC channels do.)

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

#379

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?

If it uses the ActivityPub protocol, then couldn't you use any ActivityPub client to send/receive messages with it (or else, to deal with the JSON data directly)?

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

#380
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.

I live in a country with less than that number of people in total.

Which country gets treat the corporation as if the corporation was an arm of the government? Can't really be the servant of two masters.

And if the advertisers don't like what they see, should the government(s) subsidise the sites to make up the difference? That kinda already happens a bit with TV licences in some countries.

Post reply on HN