Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by dcow » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:18 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #340

dcow wrote: 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…

Its important to remember that the tech must conform to the law, not the other way around. If it's not compatible, the the tech that must bend. That said, why is it strange to think that a license agreement must happen before a node can reshare a post?

How can the node copy the bytes to display the post to users and to send it to other nodes, if obeying US copyright to a T, if the node does not either have copyrights over the content or the content is sufficiently licensed in a way that allows the node those privileges?

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

#422

Post by dcow » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #346

dcow wrote: 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…

Would you like to elaborate instead of just a snarky "that's not how that works" with no real contribution to the discussion?

1. Who would enforce copyright on a globally distributed content platform? Which country's "copyright" laws does a node follow? Who is responsible (who do you sue) when Meta federates with a node and receives a copy of content it allegedly isn't licensed to have or doesn't have copyrights over? (Hint: not Meta, they didn't make the copy.)

2. Why do you think I used "colloquial"? On a platform where people are free to publicly view, share, copy, remix, etc. the content then the content is said to be in the public domain. In the US specifically (post 1988) the terms of use of the platform would probably need to explicitly have you release your copyrights on the content before you post, to make it clear that the content is to be treated that way. But I'm saying, the spirit of a public social network where everyone is free to engage with the text of other people's posts, is that the content is "in the public domain". Unless you can provide an alternative context and definition of "public domain" where you're technically correct...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

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

#423

Post by nemacol » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

1970-01-01 wrote: post #55

nemacol wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you help me understand why this is preferable to never joining in the first place? What is the goal? Controlling the entry for my email/auth of choice?

It is a mitigation for identity theft and slander. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26931894

Interesting. Thank you for the link.

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

#424

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

tredre3 wrote: post #25

marcosdumay wrote: post #4

Hunting down your personal details and publishing them is a crime¹, isn't it? 1 - I mean on the US where Meta really cares about. It's probably one on most countries where Meta has revenue, but that won't send anybody to jail.

> Hunting down your personal details and publishing them is a crime¹, isn't it? It's a crime to obtain public data published on a public network built on a public protocol explicitly designed to share data? Isn't that the whole raison-d'être of mastodon?

> obtain public data

That's not what I said, and not what is on the article.

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

#425

Post by indigochill » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 7:09 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #363

sanderjd wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Licensing != DRM though ... ? You can have a very strict license without actually using any cryptographic 'protection' on the content. See, for example, the way IBM used to in the 00s (still does?) release software. There was no copy protection, no license servers, no keys. But copyright was absolutely retained and you couldn't legally just give it to anyone. If you were found to be running their stuff without the ap…

You could also look at the FOSS world. Licenses are actually important because if you license some software under GPL, you have legal grounds to sue if a corporation then uses that software in violation of the license. Most corporations just treat GPL as anathema because it's rarely worth the legal effort.

So far we haven't thought of social media content as licensed but it effectively is: the license is usually the EULA of the host giving them the ability to do whatever they want with it.

So really to be responsible with social media content we really should both get a license from our users and then provide a compatible license to federating peers. At that point they can decide not to accept the license, thereby refusing to federate that content. There are already filters like this for filtering certain kinds of content from peers, so it doesn't seem like it should be a huge reach.

Creative Commons might be sufficient here. If you license content as non-commercial, then would Facebook be barred from choosing to display it to the users of their commercial platform?

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

#426

Post by nobody9999 » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 7:17 PM UTC

jdp23 wrote: post #362

nobody9999 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he article explicitly says that talking only about public posts ignores other privacy risks, and has an example related to a followers-only post. Knowing that, do you really think his point is fair? I was responding to the idea that if you post something publicly , whether that's on a Mastodon instance, a bulletin board at the library, in a Craigslist ad or any other public forum, it's unreasonable to attempt to lim…

I wasn't objecting to your point so much as you calling their summary a fair point. They stopped reading the article before they got to the example of non-public information in it, so mischaracteried it, which doesn't seem fair to me. Agreed that if something's available encrypted on the web with no login required then usually the only protections you can put on it is security-through-obscurity like hard-to-guess lin…

>I wasn't objecting to your point so much as you calling their summary a fair point. They stopped reading the article before they got to the example of non-public information in it, so mischaracteried it, which doesn't seem fair to me.

I'm confused by what you wrote. Are you claiming that people who post information in a public forum should be able to dictate who gets to see that information?

I didn't read TFA, so I have no idea what it says.

I specifically responded to what GP wrote, and only that. Full stop.

As to the rest of your comment, I don't see how that's relevant to public postings in public forums.

As in this very comment. It's on a publicly available website and is indexed by the major search engines. I have no expectation that anything I write here is "private," nor do I believe I should be able to dictate who is allowed to read this comment.

Contrast that with my Matrix server. Access to what I post there is limited to those who are invited to the specific "room" I post in. And I limit access to the site to those I wish to share such information with. What's more, I don't allow web crawlers to access that information.

Public posts are, well, public and can be viewed by anyone. Private posts are not. That some folks can't keep that straight astounds me.

As for any protocol/implementation shortcomings of Mastodon and/or ActivityPub, that's a different discussion. And one that I'm not engaging in.

As such, I think we're talking past each other. I hope I've clarified myself enough that you'll stop making assumptions that what I'm talking about is related to your (which may well be completely valid and deserving of discussion -- just not with me, at least not in this thread) concerns.

Edit: Fixed prose and typo.

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

#427

Post by Vecr » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

xigoi wrote: post #394

Vecr wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get feelings about pacifists I have to suppress. You can say that there are people aligned closely enough to you that dying is not actually an existential threat in the same sense as your country or species getting destroyed is, but it's not a good precedent to let them roll you over without a reasonable application of force. I would personally start questioning it if I had to kill over a thousand people to save myself, but if I'm mostly avoiding collateral damage (i.e. I mostly avoid killing non-rioters/non-attackers), I would keep going. Give them a couple kilodeaths and the riot will stop.

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

#428

Post by nobody9999 » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 8:42 PM UTC

jdp23 wrote: post #362

nobody9999 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he article explicitly says that talking only about public posts ignores other privacy risks, and has an example related to a followers-only post. Knowing that, do you really think his point is fair? I was responding to the idea that if you post something publicly , whether that's on a Mastodon instance, a bulletin board at the library, in a Craigslist ad or any other public forum, it's unreasonable to attempt to lim…

I wasn't objecting to your point so much as you calling their summary a fair point. They stopped reading the article before they got to the example of non-public information in it, so mischaracteried it, which doesn't seem fair to me. Agreed that if something's available encrypted on the web with no login required then usually the only protections you can put on it is security-through-obscurity like hard-to-guess lin…

I think I see the disconnect here.

I didn't really pay attention to your username and am seeing now that not only are you the submitter (to HN), but also the author of the submitted post.

As I mentioned, I haven't read your piece so I won't (as I can't knowledgeably do so) comment on the validity of your complaint about GP's point.

I don't have any issue with you, your blog or anything surrounding those things.

In fact, I'm sure you make a bunch of valid, interesting and insightful points in your post.

That said, while you're responding to me as if I had read, digested and considered all the points you make in that post, that's not the case.

My comment was completely unrelated (except as it elicited a response from GP) to your blog post and addressed a completely different set of issues.

N.B., I actually did read your blog post, but didn't realize it was the submission for this discussion thread. I agree with much of what you wrote, especially as it relates to the greedy scum who run Meta and its ilk, as well as the very real risks to a wide swathe of folks who are disfavored by some (many?) in our societies. Especially when those greedy scum "out" folks to add to their sewer of filthy lucre, which is then seized upon by the intolerant jerks to harass innocent people.

All that said, I stand by my initial point: Don't want something read by the "public"? Don't post it in a public forum. Full stop.

All the rest is orthogonal to the argument I made in the comments to which you replied.

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

#429

Post by themaninthedark » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 9:25 PM UTC

xigoi wrote: post #418

kmeisthax wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean Twitter specifically they jumped from "we have a bunch of rules that accidentally censor right-wingers more because they break the rules more" to "we intentionally censor left-wingers for the sake of balance" the moment Musk jumped in. I'm not entirely sure how that refutes my point, though - the liberals the grandparent post was talking about aren't the same class of people who actually have moderation p…

> we have a bunch of rules that accidentally censor right-wingers more because they break the rules more “Accidentally”? When people got banned for hating on black people, but hating on white people was fine, for example?

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

#430

Post by dcow » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 9:50 PM UTC

bruce511 wrote: post #354

dcow wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes all software should just be public domain. But because we have icky copyright, we have to have icky software licenses.

While your view here is perfectly valid, it would have resulted in a -very- different world than the one we have today. There would basically be no software industry. There couldn't be because there would be no way to economically do it. Software would thus only be made by hardware manufacturers- and would need specialised hardware for every task. For evidence of this alternate reality I point to an era when thus was…

If you don't believe in isolated software patents, then a world where you have to actually make a hardware system to patent your invention as hardware with supporting software doesn't seem so bad. At this point the iPhone patent would be just about to expire and we'd all be able to legally clone, sell, remix, improve, etc. the system Apple spent the last 14 years profiting off of, royalty free, nonetheless.

I'm not so sure the world today where we don't own our iPhones because Apple retains an exclusive license to the software deployed on the hardware is really a good thing for the world. And I'm 100% sure society would have figured out how to make the iPhone in a world where all software was public domain, regardless.

As an example, we see more and more open source SASS companies as time progresses. This directly validates the model that you can profit off of a well run service provider business on top of software which you allow any user to copy for free.