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

391–400 of 458 posts

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

#391

Post by jstanley »

sanderjd wrote: post #342
gowld wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? These are separate concepts.

It's a good question, so let me try to explain why this is dissonant to me, if I can. I think maybe the easiest way to illustrate it is through the person of Cory Doctorow. I don't know for sure because I haven't been following him for awhile, but I suspect he is a fan of the fediverse concept. He and the kinds of people that he influenced (like me) strike me as the kind of people for whom open federated social netwo…

This is the classic problem of assuming that people who share a few opinions with you share all your other opinions as well.

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

#392

Post by totetsu »

dahwolf wrote: post #201

The sex worker real name reveal has to be bullshit. I'm quite convinced that Meta actually does have the real name of most of us as well as the ability to link it to other accounts. But the idea that Meta would willingly reveal this without the user's consent means a planet-scale doxxing event. It could lead to actual deaths in the real world, and they would be legally crushed. What is far more likely to have happene…

  It could lead to actual deaths in the real world
They've already been there, just it wasn't white people.

Myanmar https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/07/tech/facebook-myanmar-roh... and Dutertes drug war in the Philippines https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/facebook-phil...

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

#393

Post by xigoi »

godelski wrote: post #143
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If you have personal information you do not wish bad actors to see, do not publish it using an open protocol explicitly designed to allow anyone to read said information.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…

> 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…

What's the problem with most people being to Gmail? It doesn't prevent you or me from being on a different server and communicating with them. On the contrary, e-mail is a great example of how a decentralized protocol can be widely adopted.

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

#394

Post by xigoi »

Vecr wrote: post #298
zzzeek wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the US justice system will be glad to let you sue after you've been murdered by an online mob that found out where you live

If you get doxed buy {a gun, multiple guns}, preferably a rifle with a red dot or EOTECH and a suppressor, if you can. Guns stop riots.

Ah yes, the American way of solving violence with more violence.

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

#395

Post by zimpenfish »

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.

> Isnt this a core way that ActivityPub works though?

Yep but it counters the "If you don't want your data on Threads, don't use Threads" argument since you can be two hops away from Threads and still have your data appearing on Threads.

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

#396

Post by lakomen »

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…

Of course I can say who can't use my work. It's my creation, I get to make the rules.

If I explicitly deny Meta to use my work, then that is my wish and I can sue them.

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

#397

Post by XorNot »

xigoi wrote: post #390
XorNot wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

While I oppose these things, I think people who agree with them should be allowed to express their opinion. Maybe if we allow them to explain why they support these things, we can better understand how to come to a mutual agreement.

The quote I was responding to in the top:

> 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.

This is a complete failure to understand that politics is real and has real consequences for real people. If your think that "actually none of this matters, why can't we all just get along?" then your world view and privilege is simply such that you have the leisure of ignoring it.

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

#398

Post by thworp »

godelski wrote: post #143
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…

> 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…

It's not just that there is a risk of re-centralization from network effects.

Since you mentioned email, there is also a large risk that filtering unwanted content and impersonators from appearing on your instance becomes so expensive and/or time-consuming that only a few instances have the resources to do it, just like happened with email.

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

#399

Post by XorNot »

mcv wrote: post #385
XorNot wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course. On Google+, you got a warning if you reshared something that wasn't shared publicly, but it was possible. It's also a matter of trusting the people you share it with. In the end, every private, highly encrypted message can always be made public by the recipient. That doesn't mean encryption is worthless for privacy.

Right but even then the basis of protection was still being gated in punishment metted out by a higher power. That literally doesn't exist in a decentralized model - not only can anyone setup a new instance, instances which are blacklisted can also simply rebrand.

Beyond the tightest group of confidants who you can actually trust, your content can and will leak if you put it online - and the probability of this goes up as the legal entities involved become smaller and have less and less to lose.

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

#400

Post by didntcheck »

brianolson wrote: post #132
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…

ActivityPub has been ignoring privacy since at least 2017 https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/225

I see a good discussion of the different options and why they've chosen not to take them. That's not ignoring
Post reply on HN