Notices by Tokyo Outsider (337ppm) (tokyo_0@mstdn.social)

@zoph Are buckets open by default? (Is this something everyone would have to take steps proactively to avoid, or something that has been done inadvertently by the bank?)

@johnmu @Gargron Not sure about that. It doesn't match what I've seen on the clients I've used, but there are many differences across the federated servers and various interfaces. I do really think it's him or someone on his team you should be addressing some of these points to. There are some improvements that could be made to how Mastodon works right now. The channel for that is suggestions on Github or, for security based issues, there's an email address there.

@johnmu Which would make sense because my replies here are to a post by someone who allows their posts to be indexed.

@johnmu To avoid duplication for all concerned, here's the thread https://mstdn.social/@tokyo_0/109624217124137223

@johnmu Yes, that is how it works. Why do you keep taking @Gargron out of these messages, John? He's the most knowledgeable, informed person on the very issue you say you came here to talk about, in your professional capacity working for Google. He (or someone he delegates this too, as he is a busy man) is the exact person you should be engaging with, and yet it seems you don't want to and instead are posting alarmist messages that Mastodon isn't working correctly

@tokyo_0 Yes, those protocols exist - my team recently standardized some of them as an RFC. And Mastodon implements some of them too. The problem is that as they're implemented now, public search is explicitly allowed. If this is not what's wanted, something needs to change.

@johnmu Are you saying public search is explicitly allowed for profiles that opt out of public search? Because if that's the case that is a problem. But as far as I know, it is not the case and there is no problem with the current configuration. cc: @Gargron

@katzentratschen @kiki These could be great addition. The issue with replies by people who opted out being indexed because they're replying to someone who hasn't could also use some work to make sure people know what is and is not being indexed, too — maybe there could be a notice when replying to a post that will be indexed. There are also some issues with deletion that I've flagged on Github. cc: @Gargron

@shoq @Luca @ProgGrrl @Beth @lakoja I've tested this and have seen it work. There is sometimes some latency because distributing posts depends on a batch process rather than something that is always running immediately (to help manage load). And if more people are following someone, those followed posts will load quicker because the people following them are more likely to have reloaded their timelines in the interim.

@Luca @interru You're missing the diversity that comes with having community-based hashtags, trends etc. If these things become global, that diversity is lost. Sure, right now people can *choose* to go into Explore and maybe they'll see some big accounts that are shared by people on many servers, but the servers themselves still retain their own flavour and there is value in that.

@anneroth @marty_crabneck @Luca
Mastodon has developed as a safe apace where people, especially minorities, can meet without their discussion being hijacked by trolls. Respect for privacy and data protection are seen as core values, and many have #norobots on their profiles.

So for many, full text search is something that should be avoided as far as possible. Given a lack of T&C and privacy policies, it's also legally questionable.

@marty_crabneck @anneroth @Luca
There's a big difference between allowing your account to be visible and allowing a third-party (to whom you have not given this permission) to scrape all your posts and feed them into a full text search engine.

@mur2501 I think it started with a birthday party (apparently). But yes, this whole thing does raise some serious questions about Russian activity in Odisha and India more broadly.

@Luca @johnmu This is exactly what I mentioned just now in another offshoot of this thread. I don't understand why John is saying no protocol exists for this and it's unclear how Google should handle this content when it's actually very clear how Google should handle this content and a protocol has existed for almost as long as the internet itself — certainly for the last 25 years. How could someone "work on search at Google" and not know this?

I'd like to better understand the reluctance about full #search on #Mastodon. Is there an overview somewhere?

Working at Google on search, and with SEOs, I'm not used to folks publishing things publicly, and then not wanting them to be easily found. Is there something Google could be doing - in search or in the form of guidance - that would help keep folks comfortable, and still be useful?

@katzentratschen Thanks, very helpful!

One of the things I'm trying to understand better is why the general feeling is the content shouldn't be public to the world, and yet it is published as such.

To me, making that explicit (eg, a login-wall) would set clearer boundaries, but I realize I definitely don't know the whole history.

@kiki @katzentratschen @johnmu Best explanation I've seen. ☝️ There's a reason the regulars all stop talking when strangers walk into a small pub.... even though that pub is a "public" space.

@johnmu @mirabilos @oil Protocols for this already exist and are very clearly defined, John, and if you work on search for Google, as you say, you are 100% aware of that already.

@Gargron needs to be aware of this thread.

@danbri @mirabilos @johnmu @oil All of it. Google destroys everything it touches that can't be monetized to the benefit of Google. Of course someone who works at Google wants to understand this thing they haven't yet been able to scrape, exploit, and either destroy if it challenges them or absorb if doing so is useful to Google. The best thing Google can do is learn to respect boundaries, not just see them as something to get around.

Really looking forward to opt-in, consent-based quote toots on here so people will have no excuse not to stfu about QTs, and so those who want them can enjoy abusing each other and those who want to misuse them can be frustrated that intended targets didn't opt in, and eventually we can all recognise that only a tiny number of loud people think they're a good idea and want everyone else to change their minds to agree, which perhaps tells you everything you need to know about what QTs encourage.