• 41 Posts
  • 153 Comments
Joined 3Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jul 26, 2020

help-circle
rss

If a cafe wants to enforce a “no phones” rule, they can do so relatively effectively. If a website wants to enforce a “no robots” rule (especially if they also want to not require any login to view the content on the site) they can ultimately only pretend to be able to do that effectively.

But you’re again conflating the issue of consent and enforcement. There are things we are able to do but we know to ask first before we do them. The fact that something is possible doesn’t mean that it’s allowed. The fact that something is not easy to enforce against does not make it okay to do it anyway.

What about public parks? Is it okay to walk around you while you’re having a conversation and record you, and then post that conversation on-line? Is it okay to use directional microphones to record you in such a setting? Doesn’t the whole recording-in-the-park thing from the Conversation give you the creeps?

Are you saying that the fact that something is difficult to enforce against makes it okay to do, even if the person you do this to does not want it done?


But unlisted toots are still technically public. If you scrape my profile, you will get them. And the point is: the fact that they are public in the technical sense does not mean I consented to them being scraped etc.

Just as wearing a short skirt is not blanket consent to sexual advances.


You technically can, and if you get caught the cafe can (and should, imo) kick you out for doing so.

Right, so we agree here. But you did not respond to the second question: are cafés public or private spaces?

I’m a big proponent of enforcing privacy in online and offline spaces with technology, policy, and social norms. I’m also opposed to magical thinking. Telling people that they can semi-publish, to have some of the benefits of publishing without some of the consequences, is misleading to the point of being dishonest.

Nobody is saying that. Nowhere in the thread I linked is that being said. Nowhere in my comments did I say that. It’s not about telling people they can or cannot “semi-publish”, it’s about telling people creating systems and products that they need to ask these people for permission to do certain things.

Or in other words: it’s not about telling café patrons they can or can’t have perfectly private conversations in the café, it’s about telling anyone who might want to potentially record conversations in that café “you have to ask and receive permission for this first”. That’s a pretty crucial difference.


Are cafés public, or private spaces? Can I just sit at the table next to yours and stream and record your conversation with your friends?


I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith. In fact, reading your comment again, I am pretty sure you are arguing in bad faith. And I have better things to do than engaging with that.

If anyone wants to engage in an honest conversation, those who follow me on fedi or have seen my comments around here know I’m totally game for that. But “and yet you engage in society! curious!”-level discussion is not worth anyone’s time, frankly. 🙂


Great job at working hard to miss the point entirely. 🤷‍♀️



I am one of those technology educators, and today I would still warn people that “Internet does not forget”, and that they need to be careful what they put out there.

That doesn’t mean we should not demand explanation from people who make it so, and that we should not demand them to ask for consent and respect our refusal to give it. I really appreciate how fedi culturally puts this front-and-center. I hope it continues to do so, and that this way of thinking spreads farther!

I agree that consent should not be a controversial topic. Regardless of how much it inconveniences techbros trying to “disrupt” yet another area of human endeavor.


I think search engines indexing plain old websites (blogs etc) are an importantly different case.

The nature of the medium in blogs/news websites/etc is way more public and way less intimate (in general…) than social media. Social media blur the line between private and public conversations, for better or worse.

Social media is like having a conversation in a public cafe; websites/blogs is more like publishing a newspaper or standing on the corner of a street shouting your message at strangers.

Making a public archive of newspapers or recording a person shouting at strangers is one thing. Recording semi-private conversations in a cafe is a whole different thing. Does that make sense?


Or exposure to harassment, including offline. Or context collapse. Or…

In the end, adding search would change the space dramatically, especially any privacy-related expectations. And there are about 2mln people who are using fedi with current set of expectations. There are hundreds of thousands who had been using it with this set of expectations for years. Waltzing in and bulldozing these expectations is just not a good idea.

So yeah, don’t do search on fedi unless you do some deep research about consent.


I don’t have to defend my right to decide how stuff I put out there can be used. Whoever wants to scrape my toots has to explain why they want to do so, and get my consent first.

And “well it’s publicly available so it’s fair game” is not enough of an argument. Just as “she was wearing a short skirt” is not consent to sexual advances.


Ah I might have misunderstood, sorry.


Fediverse is like e-mail Therefore it needs a search engine

What.


The bigger issue is consent. People on fediverse feel very strongly about consent, and search engines tend to just ignore it. Better do some serious research into consent to search on fedi before embarking on designing a search engine for fedi.


Buffer adds Mastodon to its social media management platform
Apparently Buffer is pretty big in "social media professionals" circles.
fedilink



It is important to remember that disappearing messages (in any application) are only helpful for people who you trust currently. (And until the messages are deleted.)

Sure, no question about it. Still, how the feature is designed matters, and I feel a design requiring both parties to consent to disappearing messages before they are enabled is bad design in this case.

One of the reasons why is: you might want to send some sensitive messages to someone while they are away/offline/unavailable. Being able to enable disappearing messages and then send what you need to send is quite important.


disappearing messages (with mutual agreement)!

Not entirely sure “mutual agreement” makes sense? I would need to read more about it, but my feeling is that it is reasonable to have the sender of the message set the terms here.

live messages – they update for all recipients as you type them.

Why would anyone want that? Is there a way to disable that?



Santa and "GDPR jokes"
> He’s making a list, he’s checking it twice, he’s gonna find out who’s naughty and nice, Santa Claus is in breach of the GDPR. Best introduction to GDPR I have seen so far. And I've seen a bunch.
fedilink


Ok, I should have been more specific: the way it is often framed (and the way I have seen it framed, and how the linked article frames it) is as if these were US-affiliated labs working on bioweapons. That is not what Nuland said. Biological research facilities do not have to be bioweapons labs, just as explosives research facilities need not be arms manufacturers.

Greenwald (the author of the linked article) of course does what Greenwald recently is hell-bent on doing, which is to try to scandalize anything he can. I used to respect the man, but that was a long while ago.


Elton John "Dear Johned" Elon
> All my life I’ve tried to use music to bring people together. Yet it saddens me to see how misinformation is now being used to divide our world. > I’ve decided to no longer use Twitter, given their recent change in policy which will allow misinformation to flourish unchecked.
fedilink


> A couple of weeks ago a billionaire, whose skin is apparently as thin as his wallet is thick, took over one of the important public squares on-line. It is a good moment to explore and recognize other dangers, in addition to failure to moderate the public debate, such centralized control creates. Twitter’s tumultuous transition to a privately held company became a lens, focusing — at long last — our collective attention on them. > > These issues are hardly new or unexpected. Activists and experts had been warning about problems related to centralized control of our daily communication tools for years. But by and large, our warnings went unheeded. Today, as we mourn the communities disrupted and connections lost, and grapple with the fallout, we have to recognize this is about more than just Twitter. And use the opportunity to learn not to make the same mistakes again. (...) > We can also build systems that allow people to switch providers without losing contact with their friends and coworkers — e-mail and mobile networks are good, familiar examples of these. The fact that the big social media services, or the huge online productivity providers, do not allow this kind of compatibility is a business decision, rather than a technological necessity. (...) > “Never let a good crisis go to waste”, Winston Churchill once said, and it would serve us well to lean into that wisdom today. A centralized, closed, monopolistic platform’s agony is a good opportunity to reconsider our over-reliance on Big Tech walled gardens in general.
fedilink

Edit: as [@poVoq@slrpnk.net](https://slrpnk.net/u/poVoq) points out, this photo might have been taken during the pandemic lockdowns.
fedilink

> In a world where a single company, which controls the conversations, news feeds, and personal connections of almost two billion people, considers it a good idea to base its post promotion algorithm on how angry a post makes its readers, we can perhaps conclude that the time has come to decentralize our digital communication spaces. Users of a recently-bought social network seem to agree. > Those with vested interests in the cryptocurrency space claim to have a solution ready: web3. (...) > web3 is less a technology project for decentralizing the internet, and more an economic project for a select few to profit from: those who acquire crypto-assets early or have the resources and knowledge to run Ethereum validators (...) > When radium was first discovered at the end of the 19th century, a whole slew of snake oil products emerged capitalizing on the sensationalism surrounding the new element and its radioactivity. Perhaps the most absurd product was the Doramad Radioactive Toothpaste, whose promotional materials used naïve and distorted notions of “energy” and “radioactive rays,” to market radioactivity as a solution to the very real problem of tooth decay. > The analogy is quite compelling. Like radioactivity, blockchain as such can be a useful tool in solving certain kinds of problems. Like dental hygiene, the decentralization of global communication platforms is an important problem, but not necessarily the right application for the instrument. Like Doromad Radioactive Toothpaste, web3 has little to do with solving the stated problem, and everything to do with profiting off of a buzzword, resulting in more harm than good in the process.
fedilink

> The thing about potential is that you can say it about anything if you don’t really have to back it up.
fedilink



> As more and more people are asking me about Mastodon I felt a need for a picture to point at, showcasing how the software known as Mastodon fits into the much larger concept of the Fediverse. I made this visualisation to help myself and others explain the many different use-cases and benefits of different services that can exchange information. ![](https://szmer.info/pictrs/image/dda2f571-b0da-41de-9e64-8b0891e06c11.png)
fedilink

Context: https://spectrum-os.org/
fedilink

cross-posted from: https://szmer.info/post/149799 > > In the latest illustration of our marvelous new decentralized, resilient blockchain future, one single Solana node apparently was able to take down the entire Solana network. Solana outages are nothing new, and tend to end (as this one did) with Solana issuing instructions to the people who run their validators, asking them all to turn them off and on again. > > > > A validator operator reported that "It appears a misconfigured node caused an unrecoverable partition in the network." It's a bit startling that, in a supposedly decentralized network, one single node can bring the entire network offline.
fedilink

> In the latest illustration of our marvelous new decentralized, resilient blockchain future, one single Solana node apparently was able to take down the entire Solana network. Solana outages are nothing new, and tend to end (as this one did) with Solana issuing instructions to the people who run their validators, asking them all to turn them off and on again. > > A validator operator reported that "It appears a misconfigured node caused an unrecoverable partition in the network." It's a bit startling that, in a supposedly decentralized network, one single node can bring the entire network offline.
fedilink



cross-posted from: https://szmer.info/post/138077 > > In the early hours of September 15, Ethereum completed "The Merge – the long-awaited transition from its original proof-of-work consensus mechanism to proof-of-stake. > > > > Later that day, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler pointed to the staking mechanism as a signal that an asset might be a security as determined by the [Howey test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.). > > 🍿
fedilink

> In the early hours of September 15, Ethereum completed "The Merge – the long-awaited transition from its original proof-of-work consensus mechanism to proof-of-stake. > > Later that day, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler pointed to the staking mechanism as a signal that an asset might be a security as determined by the [Howey test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.). 🍿
fedilink