Conversation:
Notices
-
@gargron My suggestion is that we distinguish this social network as public (just as blogs are public). Privacy should be achieved via networks and technologies designed for it - such as !xmpp.
The !OStatus technologies are all based on the open, linkable web. Trust is only possible on ::1
- Bob Mottram likes this.
-
@geckojsc Points out the issue of asocial behaviour - a part of every social network - counteracting any attempt to introduce privacy.
-
@gargron Remember the UNIX philosophy of doing one thing and doing it well. Public and private are two wildly different beasts :)
-
@nanoha If the posts are seen publicly, which they are (and if they aren't, I would argue they shouldn't federate anyway), then disallowing subscription would be illogical (because I can just scrape your profile page). And, most importantly: in a _social_ network, you should be able to get to know the other person's feed before you subscribe or verify a subscription. T…
-
@paralithode Personally I think per-post filtering inevitably ends in confused users who thought something they posted was private but forgot to tick a little box and 10 seconds later it has federated across the internet and is public for anyone - and undeletable because it was published publicly. Mixing private and public in the same tool is bound to leak and the best…
-
@sophia On services like Twitter and Facebook users are required to have only _one_ single account (on Twitter multiple accounts is allowed, but you need to verify with phone number and you can't be logged in to multiple identities at once - as you can easily do on a federated network). Facebook and Twitter offer no identity separation. Thus people feel the need to fin…
-
^- as soon as people bring up centralised, commercial anti-privacy networks like T/F I use this argument. ;) @gargron
-
@mmn @paralithode a compromise would be to have something like gnusocial but to use existing systems for end-to-end secure one-to-one chat. So a button maybe on the profile page to initiate private chat which then just uses Matrix or xmpp or Tox in the background (preferably also onion routed).
-
@nanoha I did not know. Last time I checked, the "log in" alternative on the site turned into "log out" when you logged in. This was a couple of years ago.
-
"talk about personal issues and such" <- I don't think this should be done on a social network that is otherwise public.
If you want to talk about personal issues, use a mechanism where accidentally forgetting some check box or "misunderstanding" (or more like Facebook suddenly changing their definition of private) a policy won't land you in trouble.
-
@adrienne I very much agree to that description of me. Users tend to have pretty lousy ideas.
-
@nanoha Publishing one's private communication XMPP ID (and perhaps even an OpenPGP/OTR/OMEMO fingerprint) in a profile description shouldn't be too controversial...
-
@nanoha Then any two users with their IDs and fingerprints published should be able to initiate communication in a completely private space with easy to use off-the-shelf !fs.
-
(@nanoha and making that process user friendly would be preferrable to smacking fake privacy onto an open web protocol)
-
@mmn @nanoha there seems to be some XMPP support by !GNUsocial (probably a module). I've never tried it though. http://qttr.at/1kqq
-
@fakerobotgamer Twitter will shut down soon anyway. Or sell to some random company because they're desperate and noone else wants to buy them.
-
@adrienne Nah, I just don't want to spend time solving "problems" I don't believe in the cause for. I think that goes for most non-techies as well.
-
@mcscx @nanoha that xmpp stuff is just to post and read from an xmpp client. pretty hacky and somewhat unstable due to old libs.
-
@clacke On Evan's smaller instances (e.g., *\.status\.net), it continued as an option until around the time he laid off all his employees. Unfortunately, I can't tell when (what year) that was. It also became a draw for self-hosters.