Conversation
Notices
-
@cwebber The only reason !GNUsocial doesn't have #ActivityPub yet is because I have a fulltime job and noone else has been up for the task .]
Though I'm pretty sure it'd still just be the 100% public parts of AP that would be used/promoted, as I'm pretty much convinced there's no such thing as privacy in the social sphere anyway and anyone using "private" communication in an environment like !GNUsocial or #Mastodon is fooled either by the platform, the administrator or other users. (anything accessible via a web browser isn't made for privacy)
-
@nightpool @cwebber Whether e-mail is used or not is more a question of legacy than that it would respect anyone's privacy.
My argumentation is primarily that an environment where the only difference between publishing your sensitive posts/pictures privately or publicly etc. is the value of some checkbox - then it's not appropriate for private communication. Even less so when that checkbox in practice is on a remote server governed by a remote admin.
E-mail clients, for comparison, don't have a "share this post" button that potentially goes worldwide. Public mailing lists are explicitly opt-in and there's no real notion of a "public e-mail inbox".
Federated social webs however don't work as they're dreamt about without eventually sharing information, metadata and posts to larger and larger - less controllable - groups of people.
Centralised systems can control this more - but once you go federated then the end station you will reach is full-on public socialising.
-
@nightpool @cwebber Essentially, I would like to have the discussion of "what happens when I click repeat and the post is private but I want to share it with the world?" to be somewhat settled among the _users_ (not us technicians) who will get baffled at the simple post privacy switcharoo.
-
@nightpool @cwebber Oh, and for modern "e-mail but with privacy" I would say !xmpp's solved all of the issues at hand.
-
@platano Very true. My point is however that those things (leaks) can never be reduced to zero due to people being people. However, I don't want to see a system where these things can happen by accident. Compare with the policy changes at Facebook, where suddenly things you _thought_ you had set to private suddenly weren't because Facebook's idea of a "friend" (or what a friend's friend could see, etc.) has changed drastically a couple of times afaik.
-
@gargron While it's obvious I would code it like that, my argumentation is that any evil person anywhere could set up an evil node and users would have no idea...
-
@cwebber @nightpool web-likeness = public space. Web-unlikeness = privacy capable .]
-
@cwebber Unless it was a feature with this certain host. Email is however considered like delivering via envelopes while social web platforms are like bulletin boards or at least relatively large group meetings.
-
@cwebber Then again, the "expected usecase scenario" with !XMPP is like with e-mail. There's no UI (or expectation of any UI) that has a button which says "share this with the world instantly and publicly". Or any kind of accidental tagging-someone-into-a-conversation-and-thus-maybe-letting-them-get-some-conversation-history issues.
I'm not talking technical and crypto privacy, I'm talking about how ordinary people are expected to use the communication methods. Which is an issue if 90% of the UI is designed for non-private data.
I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself, I just want to be as accurate and explicit as possible in my commentary.
MMN-o ✅⃠
All social.giorgiocomai.eu content and data are available under the