Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Jan-2025 01:59:04 JST Rich Felker

   in reply to

   @briankrebs What I'm asking is the technical question of where the location data originates from.

   Is the user's phone doxxing them due to defaults or poor ux tricking the user into letting the adtech libraries integrated into junkware apps access location api?

   Or are they getting access to location from the carrier via some identifying info the carrier can resolve back to a subscriber id to dox them?

2. Embed this notice
   Terence Eden (edent@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 07-Dec-2024 23:55:35 JST Terence Eden

   Mastodon enforces a "noreferrer" on all external links.

   I have mixed feelings about that.

   As a blogger, I want to see *where* visitors are coming from. I also like to see (and sometimes join in) with the conversations they're having.

   But, I get that people want privacy and don't want to "leak" where they're visiting from.

   Is it such a bad thing to tell a website "I was referred from this specific server"?

3. Embed this notice
   Yohan Yukiya Sese Cuneta 사요한🦣 (youronlyone@c.im)'s status on Saturday, 17-Feb-2024 23:12:58 JST Yohan Yukiya Sese Cuneta 사요한🦣

   @lrhodes Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

   Is the issue about “because it's Bluesky” and not the bridge itself?

   Let's change the scenario.

   Let's say Bluesky also implemented ActivityPub side-by-side with ATproto (just like how #Socialhome implemented #diaspora side-by-side with #ActivityPub; or #Friendica / #Hubzilla / #Streams have their own protocols side-by-side with AP).

   Is there still going to be an issue about it? Or, will it turn into “let's #fediblock Bluesky!”

   If it is about “because it's Bluesky”, then the issue is similar to how some people don't want company X and company Y and company Z from implementing the W3C standard ActivityPub, otherwise, they'll fediblock them, correct?

   In the case of bridges then, if someone creates a bridge between ActivityPub and, for example, LinkedIn, it should be “opt-out” by default because some users don't want to see their posts/replies within the LinkedIn network. And if LinkedIn later decides to implement ActivityPub, they will be fediblocked?

   Thank you for clarifying!