The fediverse has a bullying problem
-
Well, where are you all when the Fedi cheerleading squad keeps posting about how bad it is that this or that competitor stores this or that information and how secure and private and great it is in Fedi servers because they don't store anything?
Because I've spent years chiming in to explain these things in those and it normally just gets people angry and complaining that you're shilling for corporate social media or whatever. The image being projected, both accidentally and on purpose is that no centralized data collection means your data on Fedi is private when it is extremely not.
-
They're nasty pieces of shit when they don't have to look at the person they're hurting or putting in danger, but that only supports my theory. There's an empathy disconnect that's created when there isn't a human face or voice immediately in front of them. Once they aren't in danger of an in-person interaction all the venom comes out. Online, that's basically all of our interactions.
I should point out the phenomenon where a minority in a community will magically become "one of the good ones" so that the bigots can continue hating minorities while empathizing with their neighbor. This is also becoming less common as we grow more isolated from each other and everyone moves online, destroying the potential for that face-to-face interaction.
I do concede that there has been a trend towards xenophobia that has been exacerbated by filter bubbles and even more by algorithms. But the balance is that people who once had no choice but to suffer ostracism and extreme isolation have been able find community online and have improved mental health and outcomes in many ways.
I certainly found this myself in the early days of the internet before the iron fist of corporatism grabbed this fledgling space, determined to extract value from it, and creating the nightmares of isolation and hate that are now Farcebork and its ilk. Fedi has been a welcome return to smaller communities that have to do the necessary work of self management, which reduces the hate and isolation that is promoted by antisocial media, even if it doesn't stop it altogether.
My point is, the internet isn't worse. Humans can be good or bad, but certain environments make them behave in worse ways, and these environments can exist both online and off.
-
But if you officially operate somewhere, they can sue you, I thought that was common knowledge?
Anyway, not complying with local laws and operating in the country can get you in some serious trouble. And the trouble will escalate until you comply or pull out of the country.
Kim Jong Un can sue anyone. Like, they can sue Signal if they want. Sure, they have no way to enforce it, but they can sue (and win the case). It's not like this would be a first, that happened quite a few times. Especially in dictatorship.
How can non-enforceable laws be laws?
Your majesty, the peasants are rebelling, they have overtaken the army, what do we do?
-
Some people have privacy expectations that are not realistic in an unencrypted, federated, heterogeneous environment run by hobbyist volunteers in their spare time.
It you have something private and sensitive to share with a small audience, make a group chat on Signal. Don't invite any reporters.
This poster... its like every other social media platform is not anonymous?!
Why should this one be?
Did you really think i.e. reddit wouldn't corpo-analyze the fork out of your data with data science practices? Anonymous upvotes? LOL -
I’m genuinely curious what you would call this and what distinguishes it from a vulnerability.
Leaving aside responsibility, the system could have been set up in a way that wouldn’t have exposed user data but wasn’t. This is now fixed and user data isn’t exposed via this method any longer. What is the right word for what it was at the moment this flaw was discovered?
Not me who downvoted you, FYI.
To me, a vulnerability is something unforeseen, that allows bad actors to exploit the system in an unintended manner. In this case, the system is working perfectly as designed. Just because another system decided to implement a new feature without consulting anybody else, does not make it a vulnerability. Or perhaps it does, but with the vulnerability on the side of Mastodon, since they're the ones telling their users their post is private when it is actually nothing of the sort.
What would I call it? An unsupported feature. One that Mastodon forced everybody else to implement without asking or any respect.
-
How can non-enforceable laws be laws?
Your majesty, the peasants are rebelling, they have overtaken the army, what do we do?
I mean, have you ever read anything about any dictatorship?
-
It’s not meant to be a messenger, it’s not meant for privacy. Everything being public and transparent is part of the core design of the Fediverse. The idea of private groups/posts on the Fediverse seems counterintuitive to me.
Just want to counter this: Privacy is in fact a part of ActivityPub. Stuff is only meant to be public if it is sent to the Public collection, otherwise it should only be delivered to the intended recipients, much like email. This is part of the core protocol, not any extension.
-
I definitely agree, it's advertised as private, when really it's more "open" so that it's not profitable I think
I think the confusion from fediverse’s claims of privacy stem from poor enunciation from its proponents. It is more private in the amount of passive data mining for ad tracking purposes compared to for profit social media. The architecture is designed to discourage these practices from the people that manage the infrastructure. And the price for that mechanism is, making public, data that cannot be monetised on a large scale, which for profit social media guaranteed “privacy” to(in quotes because it was private from prying eyes through E2EE but not your keys not your data.)
I can see where the confusion might arise for nontechnical people who aren’t familiar with the technical aspects of ActivityPub implementations. I don’t think there should be any confusion for technical people in understanding the architecture clearly guarantees a total lack of private data, seeing as how decentralisation works.
-
Nothing is private on the fediverse, and Mastodon's bodge only gives the illusion of privacy. There should be zero expectation that any fediverse software will follow their non-standard extensions.
I think the confusion from fediverse’s claims of privacy stem from poor enunciation from its proponents. It is definitely more private in the amount of passive data mining for ad tracking purposes compared to for profit social media. The architecture is designed to discourage instance managers from implementing ad-tech from building sophisticated user profiles of your behaviour in order to serve you more targeted ads from the people that manage the infrastructure. There’s no monitoring of clicks, click through rates, time spent on the platform, the type of content you like, etc. And the price for that mechanism is, making public, data that cannot be monetised on a large scale, which for profit social media guaranteed “privacy” to(in quotes because it was private from prying eyes through E2EE but not your keys not your data.)
I can see where the confusion might arise for nontechnical people who aren’t familiar with the technical aspects of ActivityPub implementations. I don’t think there should be any confusion for technical people in understanding the architecture clearly guarantees a total lack of private data, seeing as how decentralisation works.
-
Not me who downvoted you, FYI.
To me, a vulnerability is something unforeseen, that allows bad actors to exploit the system in an unintended manner. In this case, the system is working perfectly as designed. Just because another system decided to implement a new feature without consulting anybody else, does not make it a vulnerability. Or perhaps it does, but with the vulnerability on the side of Mastodon, since they're the ones telling their users their post is private when it is actually nothing of the sort.
What would I call it? An unsupported feature. One that Mastodon forced everybody else to implement without asking or any respect.
I appreciate your reply and understand your perspective. I still don’t fully agree, it might be a matter of the point of view from which you look at this issue. But I think in essence we are on the same page.
Thanks for not abandoning the discussion!
-
the problem lies within the underlying protocol.
The problem lies with Gargron doing what Gargron does, implementing whatever the f he wants for "the Mastodon network" and not giving a crap how it affects the health of the overall fediverse.
Hell, this isn't even the first time there's been drama over Mastodon's advisory post scopes, not by a long shot. I kinda wish I'd saved receipts from the last couple times, some highly experienced devs have chimed in in the past.
Mastodon is just one of many applications that uses AP for their own custom purposes. MissKey and derived software has some kind of emoji response feature to posts that's basically unimplemented anywhere else. Lemmy's boosting trick to make comment sync make interoperability with timeline based social media a spamfest.
Maybe I should check again, but last time I looked into it there were no commonly used ActivityPub compliant servers. Everyone does their own thing just a little different to make the protocol work for their purposes. Even similar tools (see: MissKey/Mastodon, Lemmy/Kbin) took a while to actually interoperate.
As far as I can tell, the idea behind the original design, where servers are mostly content agnostic and clients decide on rendering content in specific ways, hasn't been executed by anyone; servers and clients have been mixed together for practical reasons and that's why we get these issues.
-
Mastodon moving to the ActivityPod (I think that’s the proposal name) Nomadic Identity/DID model like bluesky where the user holds their private key will be essential at some point if mastodon is going to compete with bluesky seriously for twitter refugees
Can you share the proposal? ActivityPods is something else. https://activitypods.org/
-
Yeah, you're not wrong. I definitely don't think it is a fediverse-only problem. Something changed culturally between Usenet and the things that came after.
I was thinking about this earlier today: There was a wonderful little renaissance that happened around the time of the Napster / Slashdot / flash game era, when "it's the internet so of course it is awful" was in abeyance for a little bit of time and things were cool (as well as being pretty creative, and generally sensible.) I think a lot of what I'm upset about here is not so much that people are being catty (as you said, that's just kind of the nature of the beast), but that it's so disconnected from reality. People will say wild made-up nonsense and then other people will take it seriously. Of course, yes, that's not exactly new or a fedi specific problem...
I get what you lot are getting at but my objection is this, at least when it comes to the Mastodon part of the Fediverse it gets advertised as the nicest social experiences. Mastodon not the Fediverse has a moat on civility, some of the most nasty experiences I’ve seen people have is on fedi. That creates a very different expectation and thus people don’t want to hear “that’s the internet for you”. If it wasn’t marketed as such then I’d completely agree with the points being made.
-
Can you share the proposal? ActivityPods is something else. https://activitypods.org/
This is wedistribute’s blogpost on the proposal
I thought it had some sort of branding beyond nomadic identity but I guess I was just misremembering
-
This is in part because he's in public trainwreck mode fairly often.
That's why I say it is bullying.
He does post trainwreck statuses sometimes, or miss self-imposed deadlines, or something. That's very very different from "incompetent for implementing badly something easy or toxic for federating ignoring what the federation requires" but it gives people a grain of truth to fall back on when the total bullshit they're accusing him of gets called out.
Some for JordanLund, same for FlyingSquid. People are imperfect. It's okay. If your habit is to use people's imperfections as a reason to make wild accusations at them that have no basis in reality and double down on the legitimate criticisms and pick at them, and generally just be shitty to them, then there is a perfect word for that activity.
-
So check it out: Mastodon decided to implement follower-only posts for their users. All good. They did it in a way where they were still broadcasting those posts (described as "private") in a format that other servers could easily wind up erroneously showing them to random people. That's not ideal.
Probably the clearest explanation of the root of the problem is this:
Something you may not know about Mastodon's privacy settings is that they are recommendations, not demands. This means that it is up to each individual server whether or not it chooses to enforce them. For example, you may mark your post with unlisted, which indicates that servers shouldn't display the post on their global timelines, but servers which don't implement the unlisted privacy setting still can (and do).
Servers don't necessarily disregard Mastodon's privacy settings for malicious reasons. Mastodon's privacy settings aren't a part of the original OStatus protocol, and servers which don't run a recent version of the Mastodon software simply aren't configured to recognize them. This means that unlisted, private, or even direct posts may end up in places you didn't expect on one of these servers—like in the public timeline, or a user's reblogs.
That is super relevant for "private" posts by Mastodon. They fall into the same category as how you've been voting on Lemmy posts and comments: This stuff seems private, because it's being hidden in your UI, but it's actually being broadcasted out to random untrusted servers behind the scenes, and some server software is going to expose it. It's simply going to happen. You need to be aware of that. Even if it's not shown in your UI, it is available.
Anyway, Pixelfed had a bug in its handling of those types of posts, which meant that in some circumstances it would show them to everyone. Somebody wrote on his blog about how his partner has been posting sensitive information as "private," and Pixelfed was exposing it, and how it's a massive problem. For some reason, Dansup (Pixelfed author) taking it seriously and fixing the problem and pushing out a new version within a few days only made this person more upset, because in his (IMO incorrect) opinion, the way Dansup had done it was wrong.
I think the blog-writer is just mistaken about some of the technical issues involved. It sounds like he's planning on telling his partner that it's still okay to be posting her private stuff on Mastodon, marked "private," now that Pixelfed and only Pixelfed has fixed the issue. I think that's a huge mistake for reasons that should be obvious. It sounds like he's very upset that Dansup made it explicit that he was fixing this issue, thinking that even exposing it in commit comments (which as we know get way more readership than blog posts) would mean people knew about it, and the less people that knew about it, the safer his partner's information would be since she is continuing to do this apparently. You will not be surprised to discover that I think that type of thinking is also a mistake.
That's not even what I want to talk about, though. I have done security-related work professionally before, so maybe I look at this stuff from a different perspective than this guy does. What I want to talk about is this type of comments on Lemmy, when this situation got posted here under the title "Pixelfed leaks private posts from other Fediverse instances":
Non-malicious servers aren’t supposed to do what Pixelfed did.
Pixelfed got caught with its pants down
rtfm and do NOT give a rest to bad behaving software
dansup remains either incompetent for implementing badly something easy or toxic for federating ignoring what the federation requires
i completely blame pixelfed here: it breaks trust in transit and that’s unacceptable because it makes the system untrustworthy
periodic reminder to not touch dansup software and to move away from pixelfed and loops
dansup is not competent and quite problematic and it’s not even over
developers with less funding (even 0) contributed way more to fedi, they’re just less vocal
dansup is all bark no bite, stop falling for it
dansup showed quite some incompetence in handling security, delivering features, communicating clearly and honestly and treating properly third party devs
I sort of started out in the ensuing conversation just explaining the issues involved, because they are subtle, but there are people who are still sending me messages a day later insisting that Dansup is a big piece of shit and he broke the internet on purpose. They're also consistently upset, among other reasons, that he's getting paid because people like the stuff he made and gave away, and chose to back his Kickstarter. Very upset. I keep hearing about it.
This is not the first time, or even the first time with Dansup. From time to time, I see this with some kind of person on the Fediverse who's doing something. Usually someone who's giving away their time to do something for everyone else. Then there's some giant outcry that they are "problematic" or awful on purpose in some way. With Dansup at least, every time I've looked at it, it's mostly been trumped-up nonsense. The worst it ever is, in actuality, is "he got mad and posted an angry status HOW DARE HE." Usually it is based more or less on nothing.
When I see this, the pattern is almost always the same. People take some high-profile person, and some kind of grain-of-truth accusation that they did something bad, that really boils down to "they had a bad day one day" or something, if that, and they run with it all the way through the end zone and halfway to the next town over.
Dansup isn't just a person making free software, who sometimes posts angry unreasonable statuses or gets embroiled in drama for some reason because he is human and has human emotions. He's the worst. He is toxic and unhinged. He is keeping his Loops code secret and breaking his promises. He makes money. He broke privacy for everyone (no don't tell me any details about the protocol or why he didn't he broke it for everyone) (and don't tell me he fixed it in a few days and pushed out a new version that just makes it worse because he put it in the notes and it'll be hard for people to upgrade anyway so it doesn't count)
And so on.
Some particular moderator isn't just a person who sometimes makes poor moderation decisions and then doubles down on them. No, he is:
a racist and a zionist and will do whatever he can to delete pro-Palestinian posts, or posts that criticize Israel.
a vile, racist, zionist piece of shit, and anyone who defends or supports him is sitting at the table with him and accepts those labels for themselves.
And so on. The exact same pattern happened with a different lemmy.world mod who was extensively harassed for months for various made-up bullshit, all the way up until the time where he (related or not) decided to stop modding altogether.
It's weird. Why are people so vindictive and personal, and why do they double down so enthusiastically about taking it to this personal place where this person involved is being bad on purpose and needs to be attacked for being horrible, instead of just being a normal person with a variety of normal human failings as we all have? Why are people so un-amenable to someone trying to say "actually it's not that simple", to the point that a day later my inbox is still getting peppered with insistences that Dansup is the worst on this private-posts issue, and I'm completely wrong and incompetent for thinking otherwise and all the references I've been digging up and sending to try to illustrate the point are just more proof that I'm horrible?
Guys: Chill out.
I would just recommend, if you are one of these people that likes to double down on all this stuff and get all amped-up about how some particular fediverse person is "problematic" or "toxic" or various other vague insinuations, or you feel the need to bring up all kinds of past drama any time anything at all happens with the person, that you not.
I am probably guilty of this sometimes. I definitely like to give people hell sometimes, if in my opinion they are doing something that's causing a problem. But the extent to which the fediverse seems to like to do this stuff just seems really extreme to me, and a lot of times what it's based on is just weird petty bullying nonsense.
Just take it it with a grain of salt, too, if you see it, is also what I'm saying. Whether it comes from me or whoever. A lot of times, the issue doesn't look like such a huge deal once you strip away the histrionics and the assumption that everyone's being malicious on purpose. Doubly so if the emotion and the innuendo is running way ahead of what the actual facts are.
IMO, Dan has some responsibility but more of it lies with Mastodon and other microblogging software that labels this post type as "private", "followers only" or similar without any further explanation. It needs to be clear that it's dependent on good faith and competence of remote servers that may collect that information.
Moreover we need to do a better job of letting users know that anything posted on the internet, and especially anything posted to the fediverse where it's backed up on potentially thousands of servers, should be assumed to be publicly-visible and eternal. If nothing else, it will be backed up on the internet archive. If you want to communicate privately, this is the wrong place.
I wish there was a private social media platform but it seems like the closest we're going to get is Signal.
-
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're both wrong. Here me out.
As other commenters have said, there should never be any expectation of privacy on the fediverse. DMs here and private items are not actually private, they're quite literally blasted out to anyone who listens. I feel like I have to say that a lot. I actually like how Lemmy handles it, it warns you that it's unencrypted and that it recommends Matrix (and you can put your matrix handle on your profile).
However. I'm also disillusioned by Dansup. He made a great project with Pixelfed. It got off the ground and has a great following. However, I've read through the code, I've tried to spin it up, hell even tried to help contribute - but it's a spaghetti'd mess of unmaintainable code. What irks me is rather than dive in and fix the code, help those who honestly want to spin up his projects, he starts a completely separate project (off the same spaghetti'd base that barely scales), and goes on a whole PR junket talking about it. Then when I see people asking questions of his code or how to do things he usually jumps down their throats - or completely ignores them.
And honestly the biggest thing that irked me was that I didn't feel he gave credit to the hundreds - thousands of other people who work to make the fediverse work. Pixelfed is a great experience - but it's one of many all working together, and the developers are a huge chunk, but you have the infrastructure, us admins hosting, those out there vocalizing it, those trying to start communities, it's an ecosystem, and I just felt like he ignored the fediverse and instead pushed Pixelfed.
good reply but private items are not "quite literally blasted out to anyone who listens", AP spec has audience targeting and content gets sent capillarly, like email. a Note for bob gets sent ONLY to bob's server
as:Public content gets broadcasted by some software (relays) and inbox forwarded by others (mastodon, mitra).
-
Some people have privacy expectations that are not realistic in an unencrypted, federated, heterogeneous environment run by hobbyist volunteers in their spare time.
It you have something private and sensitive to share with a small audience, make a group chat on Signal. Don't invite any reporters.
it's not unrealistic to keep trust at the server level. following your rationale, you can't trust my reply, or any, because any server could modify the content in transit. or hide posts. or make up posts from actors to make them look bad.
if you assume the network is badly behaved, fedi breaks down. it makes no sense to me that everything is taken for granted, except privacy.
servers will deliver, not modify, not make up stuff, not dos stuff, not spam you, but apparently obviously will leak your content?
fedi models trust at the server level, not user. i dont need to trust you, i need to trust just your server admin, and if i dont i defederate
-
Who would've thunk that misusing the same type for both public and private posts (with a sprinkle of weird mention rules to determine the visibility) could backfire?
Well, definitely not Mastodon devs. Lemmy's current approach of using an entirely different type is much better.
If you're interested in some details, I recently wrote a comment about it: https://lemmyverse.link/lemmings.world/comment/14476151
lemmy's approach still relies on audience targeting for privacy, just like mastodon. using a distinct object type (which is off spec btw) is "more secure" just because nobody else knows what lemmy is doing
-
lemmy's approach still relies on audience targeting for privacy, just like mastodon. using a distinct object type (which is off spec btw) is "more secure" just because nobody else knows what lemmy is doing
I said better, not more secure. It's not as easy to accidentally leak the message. It's equally easy to intentionally leak it.
