Skip Navigation
Fediverse @lemmy.world
The Nexus of Privacy @lemmy.blahaj.zone
• 73%

The free fediverses should focus on consent (including consent-based federation), privacy, and safety

https:// privacy.thenexus.today /free-fediverses-and-consent/
51
51 comments

  • Privacy is a reverse idea on the Fediverse. I know it's a hot take, but by design the Fediverse is never going to be private and people should stop assuming it is.

    When you send out a comment/like/post/whatever, you are literally broadcasting a message to any other instance listening. It essentially just says

    {
  messageId: 42,
  message: "This is some message",
  action: "comment"
}

    and if you want to delete that message it's essentially

    {
  messageId: 42,
  action: "delete"
}

    While Lemmy and Mastodon respect that, anyone can build any fediverse app and simply choose not to use it. Anyone can build a search engine and can choose to respect the delete or not. Any instance could defederate from them if they don't like that, or they may not care. The point however is that ActivityPub is designed this way, and there really isn't a better way.

    If your comment has been sent out to other instances - well then it's there already. You can't delete it without some form of just asking politely that they delete it. They have it already, it could be stored in their DB, duplicated in other DBs, aggregated and sent to AI, searchable, whatever. They have it. There is no concept of "delete" on the fediverse. It's asking nicely for them to delete it.

    48

    • The thing most people get wrong is privacy friendly =! private. If you say something publicly (on the internet) you can assume it will stay for ever, if not directly then via some sort of archive. The privacy part of Lemmy/Mastodon is them not collecting data on what you look at to sell it. If you want something private then don’t use Social Media, because what you say publicly will stay public.

      12

      • The privacy part of Lemmy/Mastodon is them not collecting data on what you look at to sell it.

        Nor requesting your real name and ID, phone number...

        3

    • Permanently Deleted

      2

    • As you say though it's only shared to any other instance listening. The point of consent-based federation is that you get to choose which instances do and don't get to listen. So if your comment hasn't been sent out out to other instances, they don't have it.

      -1

      • Its documentation, for example, describes consent-based allow-list federation as "contrary to Mastodon’s mission."

        and I would agree with them. Consent based federation would fundamentally change the fediverse and create large tenants overnight. Small instances like mine would be at the mercy of large instances to be federated with them. It relies on people being kind and open, something we have already seen that some instance owners can be, others are not. I would even argue that that isn't even federation anymore, it's just slightly more open walled gardens

        23

      • So if your comment hasn’t been sent out out to other instances, they don’t have it.

        What's stopping malicious actors to create an account on the same instance as you and follow you (or your RSS feed) exclusively to pull your data?

        Remember "information wants to be free"? That adage works both ways. If people want (or need) real privacy, they need to be equipped with tools that actually guarantee that their communication is only accessible to those intended to. The "ActivityPub" Fediverse is not it. They will be better off by using private Matrix (or XMPP rooms) with actual end-to-end encryption.

        18

  • this seems like nonsense. as if youre going to limit who can see your public posts... the fediverse is opt-out not opt-in. you opted-in when you signed up with an AP federating platform.

    if you dont want to federate, dont use a federating platform. if you want privacy, dont use a platform designed for public distribution.

    25

  • If something is on a public unencrypted website, it isn't private.

    Unfortunately certain people have chosen to mislead users about this.

    You may as well post your ass on a billboard then complain that people look at it.

    23

  • Might spund a little conspiratorial but this fubdamentally breaks what federation means and specificly gives enormaus power to larger instances. Also the language of it by calling it consent feels like its meant to evoke a certain emotional reaction almost like its part of a larger phyop.

    Also there is no such thing as privacy on the fediverse. There is anonymity if ur carefull.

    21

  • It’s fine if single instances do consent-based federation that prioritize safety over openess, but why should it become the default for all instances? It will result in instance protectionism and an overall decline in discussion quality. Making it opt-in means people will connect less likely with folks from other instances, meaning people will mainly stay on their instances, meaning it supports tribalism in the Fediverse. More safety usually comes at a cost, too. In this case: less interaction with other instances.

    But if you federate with instances that you trust good enough in the first place, constent-based federation is not necessary imo.

    20

    • @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone

      prioritize safety over openess

      1

    • No wait, I was wrong Its not necessarily instance protectionism. For especially vulnarable groups consens-oriented federation might make sense.

      The question is whether this is the desired state for all instances and I would disagree here. I think this falls under a bigger societal debate: should the fediverse become a place were all potentials of harm are completely erased? In other words: should the Fediverse become a safer space?

      First of all, minorities should be protected as by the laws of many countries. However, what harm looks like beyond that should be dynamically defined in social debate. Now you want to skip that and erase all potential out of the stand.

      This ignores that these societal norms change over time and that a certain risk is part of the human condition. There always needs to be a balance between freedom and protection for the whole society. But as said before, safer place are also needed, but they dont work as blueprint for the whole society.

      Early christian groups can also considered safe places. You are aligned here with what to me are totalitarian argumentation patterns that thrive for a garden eden that will never exist.

      That doesnt mean that we shouldnt thrive for certain ideals but not for things that cannot and shouldnt be expected of people, like giving up their free will for complete safety.

      1

  • I don't expect anything I post here to be private.

    16

  • Tbh I'm struggling to imagine what this would look like in something like Lemmy. It seems to be describing an extreme form of setting your account to private, but this only really makes sense in a situation where you have followers who are friends and family. How would I decide who to "approve"?

    2
You've viewed 51 comments.