this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
2224 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

34984 readers
139 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1874605

A 17-year-old from Nebraska and her mother are facing criminal charges including performing an illegal abortion and concealing a dead body after police obtained the pair’s private chat history from Facebook, court documents published by Motherboard show.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LeZero@lemmy.world 580 points 1 year ago (16 children)

To the people shitting on the idea of a default defederation with Meta, how about we deferedate not because it will affect us as posters but because they are evil pieces of shit?

[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 221 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

yeah, the difference is pretty stark:

  • lemmy: we'll give you a way to dm anyone on site, but please don't use that, if you set up an app on this other open source service we're not affiliated with (which is basically an encrypted discord) we'll do our best to make it as seamless for you as possible. we'll keep warning you for your own privacy.
  • meta/facebook: aggressively keeps you on-platform for spying purposes; literally killed xmpp a decade ago and they'll fuckin do it again (if we let them)

They trust me. Dumb fucks.

- Mark Zuckerberg

(yes it sounds like satire but that's a real quote)

[–] nLuLukna@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Lemmy DM is imo actually quite important. If I want to get in touch with someone about a post, nothing more. It is an easy option, and serves a purpose. It isn't imo meant to be used for anything else.

[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yep, it's important that we have this capability, but it's also nice that unlike other platforms that do their best to lock you in, lemmy actively pushes you toward a safer alternative

[–] pec@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What's the name of that safer alternative?

[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 17 points 1 year ago

Matrix, which is pretty much an encrypted and open-source Discord clone (at least in the same fashion as Lemmy would be a Reddit clone). I personally use Element to interact with it and have a matrix.org account, but Matrix is just like the fediverse, you can choose any instance or client you want, or even host an instance yourself. In your Lemmy settings you can set up your Matrix user, right below your email address as of 0.18.1, and if you do, a new buttons saying "send secure message" will show up on your profile, next to "send message", which will redirect people trying to message you to Matrix.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blue_zephyr@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

I mean I agree with Zuck on that one.

[–] bluejay@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Was it Facebook that killed xmpp or Google? Legitimately asking because I've always seen that blamed on Google.

[–] triarius@programming.dev 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was Google, they Embraced, Extended, and Extinguished it with Google Chat. Then they killed that themselves.

[–] triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

correction: it was both! fedbook chat also supported xmpp at first, they never federated but you could at least use it with a jabber client. then when they had enough market share they killed it.

fun semi related fact is that whatsapp, at least a couple of years ago, was using modified ejabberd (ie an xmpp server) as the backend - so arguably they helped with EEE too.

[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

google does seem to be the main culprit, but facebook still played a role as far as i'm aware. these two companies also colluded a lot so i wouldn't trust either of them with anything federated

[–] bluejay@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah they can both get fucked. Cheers

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

literally killed xmpp a decade ago

This was Google/Alphabet.

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How on earth did Meta kill XMPP, where is that even from lol. They didn't even have a standalone messaging app until 2011, which is after Google Talk dropped support for XMPP.

[–] bogdugg@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Some game-of-telephone misinformation originating from this article - though it has gone from Google killed it (which this article states), to it was a protocol that allowed Facebook and Google to communicate and then got killed, to Facebook killed it.

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't even agree that Google killed it, because it's simply a messaging protocol, it doesn't "die". Maybe you could try to argue that Google killed Jabber, but I used Jabber back in the early 00s, pretty much nobody else did lol, almost all IM communication was done over MSN Messenger. Google Talk brought XMPP "users" and they left when Google sunsetted Talk in favour of Hangouts. Facebook Messenger used XMPP for a time, so if anything they "revived" it (they didn't, it was never dead), but, like all the other messaging apps, they moved to their own proprietary version to add their own features.

This is what XMPP was actually designed for, the X literally means "eXtensible", whether it's extended open source or into proprietary versions.

I feel like there's a lot of anti-tech misinformation on Lemmy and it's great to be skeptical, but honestly I think we waste a ton of time being easily ragebait'd into the wrong shit.

[–] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Video killed the radio star!

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago
[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

my understanding was that while google is the main culprit, facebook and google both played a big part in killing it. but since we're discussing meta/facebook here, and they're not blameless, i focused on that.

but yeah, fuck google too.

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

they're not blameless

I think we should try to do better here and provide actual reasoning to our statements instead of unbridled rage, regardless of the topic, because this isn't valuable content. I work in an adjacent industry and I believe that a lot of what people have said lately about this topic is overly sensationalized and I don't mind discussing it, but "fuck Meta/Google because they're evil" is subjective as hell and gets us nowhere except back to Reddit culture.

This discussion pyramid was a good post from the other day:

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b48a0a91-c7a3-4cc5-a117-6deceedde205.png

Your comments are "ad hominem" at best.

[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Saying distrust is an ad hominem is one of the takes ever, lol. And that's what all of this boils down to, trust. Do we trust Meta with not exploiting all of our data, and turning it against us at the earliest opportunity? Do we trust Meta that they want to contribute to the fediverse, and not just hurt it because it's a competitor?

By the same logic, blocking or banning a person instead of vetting every post and comment of theirs would also be an ad hominem. But at the end of the day, it's just practical. Meta has a long and not so proud history of being extremely anti-consumer, and shoving that track record under the rug, trying to absolve them of responsibility and consequences for their actions, under the thought-terminating cliche of an ad hominem is neither productive nor practical.

Yes, people are mad at Meta, and yes, the distrust means their actions are scrutinized more than they otherwise would be, but that doesn't mean that their actions aren't actually massively anti-consumer, and that they aren't a massive liability. In this particular case, you can make the argument that they had a legal obligation to hand over the data, had they not tried to build a walled garden with no privacy they wouldn't have had the data to hand over to begin with.

(also, unrelated: you can embed images using the ![](https://image_url) syntax, and you can even add alt text in the brackets to help users with screen readers)

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

in a thread where we're discussing how meta helped religiofascists violate someone's human rights "meta is evil" is a summary, not an ad hominem

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] siouxsy@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah Google is more to blame for that. When they defedarated it was pretty much the end of XMPP. From what I remember, Facebook used the protocol but never opened their service for federation.

[–] favrion@yiffit.net 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That was a quote from 13 years ago when he didn't know how massive his enterprise would become. People change.

As for him, he became more evil.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lemmylefty@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And even if what I do is relatively tame, I want others to be protected from the wolf at the door.

[–] whofearsthenight@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This. I don't need to win, I just want Meta to lose.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Are you saying that the individuals who run these servers and instances aren’t subject to the same laws? I read the article, and Facebook complied with a court order.

You don’t think anyone running Lemmy would do the same without access to lawyers and capital like Facebook has?

[–] LeZero@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Do you have to run your lemmy instance in the US?

Maybe do it in a less backward place

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Not disagreeing with you there.

[–] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Every interaction on Lemmy is copied to all other federated instances. There are instances all over the world with a copy of yours and my comment. They can track and use those comments for any purpose. Its both a blessing and a curse of an open federated structure.

[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 15 points 1 year ago

they can also scrape them. that's not really the point.

people can dm on lemmy, and only the two instances that host the people on either end of the dm (which may even be the same instance) store that dm. that instance may actually receive a subpoena. but all of this is heavily discouraged by the lemmy interface itself, instead prompting people to set up a matrix account instead, and matrix chats are end-to-end encrypted.

[–] peril33@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Its a social platfrom. Dont use it for personal communications.

[–] Brownboy13@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And how can we be sure that all the instances federated with any instance we participate on aren't run by law enforcement themselves? I'd be surprised if there aren't running instances by every major investigative agency themselves.

[–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is why everyone should take steps to protect their privacy. You don't have to go 0-100 overnight. Just audit yourself and do a few things now. Keep those habits up. Then audit and add a few more things, repeat.

I need to do this myself, I've been slipping

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lemmy promotes using Matrix, which is a separate service, so instance admins don't need to be in the business of hosting private conversations.

Matrix is end-to-end encrypted so even the admins of your Matrix server could not provide your chats to law enforcement.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wish Lemmy was as well. Ah well.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Complying with the law is less of an issue than keeping that data accessible in the first place.

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

But also fuck these laws and the people passing them and the people voting for the people passing them. They're the real evil.

We have to always assume rich corporations are going to do whatever serves their best interest. It's nature. Like a mantis is gonna bite off her mate's head when they're done mating. It's up to governing factors to keep them in check. On that note, +1 to defederate. They will cannibalize or however abuse Lemmy if it will make them a penny.

[–] burak@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think we’re realizing more and more any corporate-operated platform is luring us in to sell to us and sell us.

[–] FoxyZac64@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ya. That's fucked. Just ruin someone's life like that. Holy fuck.

[–] 2MnyDcksOnThDncFlr@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I totally agree with your sentiment... However they don't have a choice. They are legally obligated to turn that information over if they are served a warrant. Doing anything less is obstruction at the very least and they could be shut down and put into receivership.

The fault here is with the two individuals trusting a corporation to keep data private and to put the individuals interests ahead of the corporation. Neither is a realistic expectation.

[–] triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago

they could have made their shitty DM system end-to-end encrypt messages by default, instead of burying that feature[0] in chat settings

or, they could have used their MASSIVE wealth and lobbying power to directly fight the warrant in court (if there even was one, they have a long history of just requiring a form ostensibly signed by any cop to turn over private data)

or they could have just lied and said they couldn't find the data

I don't disagree that people shouldn't trust Facebook but saying "they don't have a choice" is absurd

[0] https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-app/786613221989782

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DrQuint@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I vote to write this reasoning at the very top, on the sticked topics when it happens. Like, literally just write "Because Facebook is evil" and don't elaborate.

Plus, if someone shows up being a concern troll on the point, they will laser focus on it, taking the bait, we can all just block the person, a world improved.

load more comments (8 replies)