Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   FinchHaven (finchhaven@sfba.social)'s status on Thursday, 21-Dec-2023 22:51:52 JST FinchHaven

   • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
   • misfit loser zealot patatas

   @smallpatatas

   Yeah it was bizarre - I'd just posted and edited that first and I flipped over to email and was like "Wait… what?"

   Interesting

   Throws the responsibility back onto the individual user

   cc @tokyo_0

   • Embed this notice
     FinchHaven (finchhaven@sfba.social)'s status on Thursday, 21-Dec-2023 22:57:06 JST FinchHaven

     • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
     • misfit loser zealot patatas

     @tokyo_0

     Yeah this is going to be interesting to follow

     It's a major philosophical statement all on its own, seems like

     It also requires that the user be homed on an instance that's running whatever Mastodon version this ends up in

     Will it be v4.2.4 or v4.3.0?

     Small instance admins under the gun, again...

     cc @smallpatatas

   • Embed this notice
     FinchHaven (finchhaven@sfba.social)'s status on Thursday, 21-Dec-2023 23:17:16 JST FinchHaven

     • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
     • misfit loser zealot patatas

     @tokyo_0

     Yeah, I've watched Gargron on Github and he really is a Dictator For Life

     Not too sure about the Benevolent part

     Several times I've seen him close down comments on an Issue with "Closing these comments. Your concerns have been voiced. I'm going ahead with what we were doing here"

     Of course that's his prerogative, but still...

     cc @smallpatatas

   • Embed this notice
     Alexey Skobkin (skobkin@lor.sh)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jan-2024 12:18:36 JST Alexey Skobkin

     in reply to

     • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
     • misfit loser zealot patatas

     @FinchHaven @smallpatatas @tokyo_0
     Not really. You can't technically restrict someone from getting to your public content. Unless you know their network addresses. You can make it unavailable via WebFinger or Mastodon API, but it still will be available as a simple web page while your post is not followers only or private.

     So I personally don't see how this could help against malicious actors. Also I'm not sure why it's needed when the actor is not malicious.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexey Skobkin (skobkin@lor.sh)'s status on Monday, 08-Jan-2024 00:18:26 JST Alexey Skobkin

     • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
     • misfit loser zealot patatas

     @tokyo_0 @FinchHaven @smallpatatas
     I personally try not to take useless actions to prevent something.

     For example Security Through Obscurity is considered a bad practice in infosec sector. Nobody uses that as an alternative to good passwords or cryptography.

     Okay, somebody does, but then we read about them in the news about another data leak.

     Making content available with one type of HTTP request and not available with another is somewhat strange.

     I'm not sure what's the people's problem with Meta discovering their PUBLIC posts. It does not give them copyright over it 🤷
     Why aren't they bothered that Google or Microsoft discovers the same posts? If they are bothered then why are they making those posts public?