Yeah, the pitchfork crowd manages to shut down everyone who tries to do something genuinely good for the community, while leaving all the bad actors running wild in the background.

I mean, we always knew loud voices in the open source community were toxic as fuck - that's obvious enough from the Linux mailing list. Giving these people their own social network to ruin was wildly optimistic from the beginning. It's a wonder it hasn't gone worse.

It's amazing how computer nerds posting on the fucking fediverse can be so sceptical of seeing their content leave the platform they're currently on. Like that's not the whole goddamn point of posting here in the first place.

Also, Bridgy.fed rules. Anyone out there on Mastodon or Bluesky: Please opt in! :)

[–] Blaze@feddit.org 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s amazing how computer nerds posting on the fucking fediverse can be so sceptical of seeing their content leave the platform they’re currently on. Like that’s not the whole goddamn point of posting here in the first place.

It was more about the unability to defederate if necessary (e.g. conspiracists or crypto bros becoming the majority users here), and the bridge not being opt-in at the beginning.

[–] drone509@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I understand those concerns, but I'm not sure if this really improved the security of mastodon, an inherently very insecure software, and it definitely deprived us of a useful tool. Defederation works at stopping spam, but I don't think it really helps much when it comes to preventing people from seeing things you post. It stops a single server, but bad actors can just migrate to a new one, or spin up a new hostname.

[–] Blaze@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

but bad actors can just migrate to a new one, or spin up a new hostname.

Then you defederate from it too. I just went through some instances list, some servers have been defederating Mastodon instances like crazy

[–] rglullis@communick.news 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Then you defederate from it too.

Okay, let me create an account on mastodon.social and use it to scrape content from every other instance.

Better yet, let me create an account on "i-want-privacy-in-a-public-internet.example.com" and access the federated timeline directly, then I can go and push the content from everyone into this discovery service.

What are they going to do? Unless they go to the point of asking for physical evidence behind the person asking for accounts and/or only give invitations to people they already know, and *completely shut down their own servers to the outside world, they will never be able to avoid data leakage.

And if they do get to do any of this, then what is the point of using anything based on ActivityPub? They will be better off by just using any of the existing group chat servers like Discord (or Matrix/XMPP if they still care about FOSS.)

[–] Blaze@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The point we were discussing was not data leakage, it was the inability to defederate from a huge instance which would overflow the number of users, similar to the way people imagined what would happen if Threads federated, and Lemmy is suddenly overflown with people usually on Facebook.

It's not a bad thing per se (anyone can make their own opinion), but not having even the option to defederate is the issue.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, admins might think of defederation as a way to avoid interaction with larger instances, but in the case of the bridge it was mostly regular users crying "I don't my content going in a place that I do not control", with "lack of opt-in" and "this violates GDPR" being the main reasons cited to be against it.

With Threads is the same thing. The whole thing with users asking their admins to block threads is not because they were worried about Threads pushing too much to the smaller instances, but to block Threads from mining data from the Fediverse to their profit.

[–] Blaze@feddit.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't be so sure, a lot of people pointed out that the privacy argument wasn't one as everything is accessible publicly.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, lots of people were trying to point that out, those people were not the ones screaming at snarfed. It was the "mah privacy" crowd that was panicking at the thought of data being available and searchable in a server outside of their own.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think what you are talking about is instances that may have a large population of marginalized groups, and the fear that someone is creating a database that could be used to easily seek them out and use it for trolling and such. Which I think is a very valid concern.

And as mentioned above, you have the crowd that wants to take an instance and give all their posts over to for-profit corporations like Threads and Bluesky, that should not even be called part of the fediverse IMHO.

I don't know how you make a global search for the fediverse that avoids both of those issues though.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

marginalized groups, and the fear that someone is creating a database that could be used to easily seek them out and use it for trolling and such.

The fear might be justified. I don't question that the issue exists, but the belief that they can stop it.

Let me repeat: there is no real privacy in any social network. If people are genuinely afraid of being targeted because of what they write online, the solution is not to give them a false sense of privacy, but to educate and empower them to use messaging platforms that are provably secure.

Those that are telling marginalized folks to use instance XYZ because "they don't federate with threads and therefore are safe" think that they are being helpful, but in reality are putting them at even more risk because they are telling all of them to concentrate in the same place and make the targeted tracking even easier for malicious actors.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 2 points 2 months ago

Let me repeat: there is no real privacy in any social network. If people are genuinely afraid of being targeted because of what they write online, the solution is not to give them a false sense of privacy, but to educate and empower them to use messaging platforms that are provably secure.

I think everyone understands that what they type is public, but there is a difference between posting something to a community that may be small in nature and would likely only be found and read by those also interested or a part of said community, and someone creating a database of ALL this type of content that some troll can use to more easily target people and blast their hate filled replies out to.

Those that are telling marginalized folks to use instance XYZ because “they don’t federate with threads and therefore are safe” think that they are being helpful, but in reality are putting them at even more risk because they are telling all of them to concentrate in the same place and make the targeted tracking even easier for malicious actors.

I don't think anyone is telling groups "post to my instance and you'll be safe from threads". But when people want to do things like creating bridges from Threads to Lemmy they strip admins of the ability to block Threads content from Lemmy instances that defederated Threads for a reason.

These topics have far reaching implications that just "I want all the search!" and anyone that doesn't want it is holding the fediverse back.