Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 00:45:17 JST Stefan Bohacek

   Fediverse contains multitudes.

   https://stefanbohacek.com/blog/how-to-be-a-good-fediverse-citizen/

   #fediverse #SocialMedia #fedidev #developers

   • Tim Chambers repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     BeAware :fediverse: (beaware@social.beaware.live)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 00:45:16 JST BeAware :fediverse:

     in reply to

     @stefan the issue comes when people post with "public" setting and expect privacy.

     If they're on Mastodon, they immediately have no privacy because their profile has an RSS feed.

     Here's yours in an RSS reader.👇

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 00:45:17 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     The topic of consent in the fediverse is fascinating to me. I am definitely still learning how to best navigate it myself.

     The examples I used seem pretty straightforward. I've also seen people ask for permission before reposting their post, which makes sense if you're a high-follower account and may not want to draw too much attention to someone with fewer followers.

     There are definitely situations that are a bit harder to get right. This could be an article of its own.

     #fediverse #consent

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 01:07:39 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • BeAware :fediverse:

     @BeAware To be fair, there is an open ticket to allow people to opt out of this.

     https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/22172

     An example I like to use is, a website can be public, but it can still limit how it can be interacted with through robots.txt.

     Imagine being able to create a robots.txt file for your social media profile as if it was your personal website!

     BeAware :fediverse: repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     BeAware :fediverse: (beaware@social.beaware.live)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 01:07:57 JST BeAware :fediverse:

     in reply to

     @stefan I can only speak about what currently exists. Not wish for what COULD exist because it might never become so.🤷♂️

     Currently, there's no real privacy here. Maybe one day there will be. As for right now, people need to know to protect themselves and not expect it automatically.

   • Embed this notice
     Raphael Lullis (raphael@mastodon.communick.com)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 01:11:45 JST Raphael Lullis

     in reply to

     • BeAware :fediverse:

     @stefan @BeAware

     robots.txt is no contract, no one should expect to be protected from being crawled just because they placed some hints indicating what user agents are welcome.

     Relying on consent and general good behavior is just bad digital hygiene. I'd rather people just acknowledged that and make it a basic principle: do not post anything on the open web unless you are sure you don't mind it being available to any present or future malicious/adversarial entity.

     BeAware :fediverse: repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 01:20:46 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • BeAware :fediverse:

     @BeAware Fair enough. The different understanding of what "public" means and the lack of tools to better control this are definitely at the root of a lot of the disagreement.

     Look at tech companies now arguing that they should be free to use anything posted online to train AI.

     https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/big-tech-lobby-ai-use-1235916540/

     That's a bold statement. And they are indeed getting away with it, for now.

   • Embed this notice
     Tom Casavant (tom@tomkahe.com)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 01:22:58 JST Tom Casavant

     in reply to

     • BeAware :fediverse:

     @stefan @BeAware I think there could be a legal exploration into this topic as well.

     I know implied copyright has been discussed for years regarding publishing to the web or to an RSS feed. In the US I recall a case where a subscription news-syndication platform was pulling in the full text of RSS feeds and they were being sued under the idea that just because someone posts an RSS feed doesn't mean you can use the contents of that RSS feed for any purpose.

     I'm not sure if the same would apply to ActivityPub but I don't know if I have an explanation for why it wouldn't

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 01:23:13 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Raphael Lullis
     • BeAware :fediverse:

     @raphael @BeAware "do not post anything on the open web unless you are sure you don't mind it being available to any present or future malicious/adversarial entity"

     Sure, that is a solid advice for now. But we do have to work towards improving this, and definitely not dismiss people who want things to change.

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 01:45:29 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Raphael Lullis
     • BeAware :fediverse:

     @raphael @BeAware This reminds me of the Hacker News policy (and other sites implementing a variation of it, like Reddit, and Stack Overflow), where you can't easily delete your own post, as it is "too valuable to the community".

     Sure, that makes sense. As a developer, I am thankful when someone asks about a problem I am myself dealing with and someone else figured out the answer to.

   • Embed this notice
     Raphael Lullis (raphael@mastodon.communick.com)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 01:45:30 JST Raphael Lullis

     in reply to

     • BeAware :fediverse:

     @stefan @BeAware

     Be careful what you wish for.

     The old "information wants to be free" adage is not just a quip for pirates to justify download of copyrighted material . It's also a good reminder that any technology that is created to limit transparency *will be subverted in favor of ruling elite*.

     I for one *do not* want an internet where I can not browse freely. "Consent-based mechanisms" work at personal, local level, not at a global one.

     BeAware :fediverse: repeated this.