Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Marco's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
the people's eva

@polotek only thing I'd say in response is, it's not so easy to make your own instance. It requires some time, learning, and money. Not everybody has those resources to spend on social media.

And if your admin has to block an instance to opt out all of their users, it's not a default.

Now, was every bit of this dogpile on the guy necessary? Probably not. But was it necessary to force everyone to yell at their admin/move instances and therefore risk losing connections/make their own server just so the bridge would have more users by default? Definitely not.

14 February at 4:16 | Wall-to-wall | Open on blackqueer.life
49 comments
Marco Rogers replied to the people's eva

@tillshadeisgone I'm not sure you have this right. What you're choosing is a world where you have to yell at every individual who ever tries to federate from outside of mastodon. There's nothing special about this one guy. Somebody else could try the same thing tomorrow. And the day after that. And you don't have control over any of them.

14 February at 4:29 | Open on social.polotek.net
sbszine replied to Marco

@polotek @tillshadeisgone You're right about that. The ideal solution would be if instance API users had to do delegated authentication via OAuth2. Then anyone could build whatever they wanted, but data would only move around with consent. From there you could elaborate to blocklists, sensible defaults, etc.

14 February at 6:32 | Open on dice.camp
Jon replied to Marco

@polotek The thing is, with Mastodon software, tools for controlling federation choices (both individually and at the instance level) are very limited in Mastodon. Allow-list federation at the instance level is strongly discouraged by Mastodon and cumbersome to manage; it doesn't exist at the individual level. Anything policy based, which is what you really need to make it scalable, isn't even a concept.

Which is a problem! But it's hard to resolve at the individual level ...

@tillshadeisgone

14 February at 6:33 | Open on indieweb.social
Jon replied to Jon

Other fediverse microblogging platforms all have blockers to broader adoption -- functionality isn't fully there yet, horrible UI, not a lot of support from hosting companies, etc. And with most of them, support for controlling federation choices isn't much better. So things are trapped in this weird suboptimal state; and most microblogging resources go to Mastodon, so it's been hard to break out of the cycle.

@polotek @tillshadeisgone

14 February at 6:37 | Open on indieweb.social
Jon replied to Jon

And there's historically a LOT of resistance in the fediverse to consent-based federation. @anildash talks about how consent's a key often-unstated value in the fediverse, and that's true, but in practice it's also very intermittent. And many (most?) high-profile fediverse "influencers" are in the camp that's actively hostile to consent. So incremental change is hard.

@polotek @tillshadeisgone

14 February at 6:42 | Open on indieweb.social
Jon replied to Jon

All that being said, great thread, your observations are very on-target!

@polotek @tillshadeisgone

14 February at 6:44 | Open on indieweb.social
marcelcosta replied to Jon

@jdp23 @anildash @polotek @tillshadeisgone I think (and we have already stated that in other conversations), that at least part of the resistance is the idea that small instance would suffer from consent-based federation. And I know that there are some ideas to overcome that, but it’s not an easy one to solve.

14 February at 7:50 | Open on bcn.fedi.cat
Escaping Galt's Gorean Gulch replied to Marco

@polotek @tillshadeisgone I keep saying this in context after context but the only way you stop people like the dipshit who wanted to opt everyone into his nonsense, as well as trash like Richard Spencer is to intimidate, drive them out of the commons, and make sure the others understand that if they attempt to enclose our commons (including feeding it into their analytics or AI crap) they will have a very miserable day.

14 February at 6:33 | Open on orbital.horse
Escaping Galt's Gorean Gulch replied to Escaping Galt's Gorean Gulch

@polotek @tillshadeisgone I say this as someone who helped organize a work place, people with power over others will never willingly let go (and copying data into Jack's garbage site is power over) and you fight power with power.

14 February at 6:35 | Open on orbital.horse
Escaping Galt's Gorean Gulch replied to Escaping Galt's Gorean Gulch

@polotek @tillshadeisgone and no, I'm not a particularly fun person or great at parties.

14 February at 6:36 | Open on orbital.horse
Marco Rogers replied to Escaping Galt's Gorean Gulch

@emma @tillshadeisgone Emma you really just took this random guy who wanted to mess with some tech and put him in the same sentence as Richard Spencer. He doesn't have any "power" except for the power to run a server. Same as you and me.

14 February at 6:51 | Open on social.polotek.net
Escaping Galt's Gorean Gulch replied to Marco
Marco Rogers replied to Escaping Galt's Gorean Gulch

@emma @tillshadeisgone understood. It's gonna be great sharing an internet with you. I feel safer already.

14 February at 7:03 | Open on social.polotek.net
Escaping Galt's Gorean Gulch replied to Marco

@polotek @tillshadeisgone there is a through line from dude hoovers up everyone's data to tech billionaire trying to overturn elections they don't like the results of, to people like richard spencer. All of these are people who don't care about the harm they cause.

14 February at 7:22 | Open on orbital.horse
Marco Rogers replied to Escaping Galt's Gorean Gulch

@emma @tillshadeisgone I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain again. I believed you the first time you said you stood by it. You've been heard. I find this leap to be pretty unreasonable and scary. I'm gonna move on before you decide I'm also the Antichrist for some reason. Take care.

14 February at 7:26 | Open on social.polotek.net
sbszine replied to Marco

@polotek @tillshadeisgone An angle I'd like you to think about is how you should respond when someone tells you they're hurting. You could tell them they aren't really & that they need to toughen up, or you could tell them that it's for their own good, or any number of responses. Even if you don't personally understand or relate to someone's situation, I think it's best to say 'I hear you' or show some empathy. People are really afraid of brigading from this.

14 February at 6:35 | Open on dice.camp
Marco Rogers replied to sbszine

@sbszine @tillshadeisgone how do you think the bridge guy is doing today? You think he might be hurting at all? I mean people are equating him with Richard Spencer today.

14 February at 6:55 | Open on social.polotek.net
Tom Ritchford replied to Marco

@polotek @sbszine @tillshadeisgone

There's one of him, but he wants to take the content of millions of us.

14 February at 10:29 | Open on toot.community
Da_Gut replied to Tom

@TomSwirly @polotek @sbszine @tillshadeisgone How is he taking? If a post is marked public, its public - if you don't want it taken, don't mark it public.
It seems the tools are already in place to deal with this.

14 February at 15:21 | Open on dice.camp
the people's eva replied to Da_Gut

@Da_Gut just because someone makes a public post on the fedi doesn't mean they want it to end up on Bluesky. That's not an unfair way to feel.

14 February at 15:32 | Open on blackqueer.life
Da_Gut replied to the people's eva

@tillshadeisgone We use different meanings of the word "public". To you, public means "the fedi", to me, public means everyone, everywhere - the original meaning of public.

I'm not sure how to reconcile the differing meanings, frankly.

14 February at 15:43 | Open on dice.camp
Marco Rogers replied to Da_Gut

@Da_Gut @TomSwirly @sbszine @tillshadeisgone people are very concerned about the honor system on the internet. You didn't know that?

14 February at 15:40 | Open on social.polotek.net
Da_Gut replied to Marco

@polotek @TomSwirly @sbszine @tillshadeisgone

Autistic, There is a metric shit ton I don't know, especially socially.

14 February at 16:19 | Open on dice.camp
sbszine replied to Marco

@polotek @tillshadeisgone I'm not a moral relativist. I'm fine with the one bad guy having a worse time than the many victims. Keep dodging the issue though.

14 February at 10:35 | Open on dice.camp
Marco Rogers replied to sbszine

@sbszine @tillshadeisgone I'm not dodging anything. It's you that is pretending that this one guy is your only problem. Or that your strategy for privacy is going around making strident moral arguments to every other human in the entire world to get them to do what is best for you personally. Rather than availing yourself of the tools at your disposal. Good luck with that I guess.

14 February at 15:36 | Open on social.polotek.net
Marco Rogers replied to Marco

@sbszine @tillshadeisgone "if he's not doing what I want then fuck that guy. But yeah I totally care about protecting other people from harassment. Just not him. Cause fuck that guy."

14 February at 15:36 | Open on social.polotek.net
sbszine replied to Marco

@polotek @tillshadeisgone Correct. Likewise Donald Trump, Netanyahu et al.

14 February at 20:38 | Open on dice.camp
Marco Rogers replied to sbszine

@sbszine @tillshadeisgone trump, netanyahu and some random guy with a laptop. The new axis of evil. This gave me a good laugh. Thanks for that. Sincerely. 😂

14 February at 20:52 | Open on social.polotek.net
sbszine replied to Marco

@polotek An ad absurdum obviously but you get the idea! Not everyone has equal power and privilege. Bridge guy is nowhere near the Trump level but initially he was oblivious to any ethical or privacy concerns. (His years at Google probably didn't help there either!) This is a common thing I see in tech classrooms, where the people with the privilege to be in tech see end users as a faceless resource or a means to an end.

14 February at 21:24 | Open on dice.camp
Marco Rogers replied to sbszine

@sbszine this post is rife with a ton of your own simplistic and presumptuous notions about other people. It's super weird. For the record, I do not "get the idea". Bringing trump and netanyahu into this context was incredibly jarring and did nothing to help you seem more reasonable. And this post only makes it worse. It feels clear to me that you're not a person I want to be talking to. I'm gonna move on. Take care.

14 February at 21:50 | Open on social.polotek.net
sbszine replied to Marco

@polotek @tillshadeisgone As I've said to you elsewhere, I agree this one guy isn't the only problem and my preferred answer to this is delegated authorisation as used by LTIs and the like. Putting pressure on bad actors is the tool at my disposal so I'm doing that. So far it's working, but as I said above it's not my preferred solution.

14 February at 20:37 | Open on dice.camp
Marco Rogers replied to sbszine

@sbszine @tillshadeisgone "so far it's working". I think this is the specific part that I disagree with. And I keep asking why people think it's sufficient.

But I get it. That's all people feel empowered to do. So we're gonna just wait around until the bad thing happens. And then be mad about that to anybody who will listen. Being mad in public is the security blanket. I think we understand each other better. Thanks for hanging in there.

14 February at 20:41 | Open on social.polotek.net
sbszine replied to Marco

@polotek It's a question of how you see protesting and social pressure. Sometimes, yep, it's just people getting mad & nothing is achieved. Sometimes it's effective or maybe just lets you know you're not alone. It's a case by case thing. For me the Iraq invasion protests were unsuccessful but it was good to see the huge worldwide turnout. The pressure has been successful with this bridge thing & I think it's a good result where you can still use the bridge if you want.

14 February at 21:12 | Open on dice.camp
sbszine replied to Marco

@polotek And again, I agree it's not sufficient or sustainable -- the protest has to work every time -- but it's what we have absent a technical solution to our data being flowed to an advertising server like the bsky indexer. If the next bridge or whatever ignores the social pressure then you might see legal action or some sort of technical response. Anyway I'm satisfied with the outcome here where bridge fans can opt in & privacy is the default.

14 February at 21:18 | Open on dice.camp
the people's eva replied to Marco

@polotek Hmm, a right to what? A right to have some say in how my data is spread? I don't think that's unfair.

It's already been said down thread, but I don't think the issue is federation itself. The fedi isn't just Mastodon, and most users are aware of that. But Bluesky, like Meta, is very different from an Akkoma or a Misskey. The venture capitalists behind both Meta and Bluesky build wealth over data mining. I can see why that would upset some people, especially because it's not clear that blocking the domains would fully stop data from getting vacuumed up. Many folks came here to stop giving their data wholesale to corporate hell social media companies. I think that makes sense.

Furthermore, I have yet to understand why this guy couldn't have made it opt-in. Why would centering consent have been so impossible, especially given the position he has placed everyone in? I, like many others, just don't think it's fair that folks should have to potentially take major actions like moving instances, starting an instance, etc just because of something they never agreed to.

@polotek Hmm, a right to what? A right to have some say in how my data is spread? I don't think that's unfair.

It's already been said down thread, but I don't think the issue is federation itself. The fedi isn't just Mastodon, and most users are aware of that. But Bluesky, like Meta, is very different from an Akkoma or a Misskey. The venture capitalists behind both Meta and Bluesky build wealth over data mining. I can see why that would upset some people, especially because it's not clear that blocking...

14 February at 12:07 | Open on blackqueer.life
Marco Rogers replied to the people's eva

@tillshadeisgone you do have some say. With your admin and your local insurance. I'm not sure how many ways I have to try to explain this. Your controls over how your data spreads are in your hands. It doesn't require going around the entire world trying to prevent every other human from making decisions you don't agree with. I promise you will fail at that.

14 February at 15:32 | Open on social.polotek.net
the people's eva replied to Marco

@polotek the reason you feel like nobody is hearing what you are saying and that you keep repeating yourself is that you aren't engaging the points being raised.

You're saying there are tools available, we're saying those tools aren't readily available or equally accessible to all users. You don't seem to believe that, but it is the case.

You're saying we're trying to control everyone's behavior, we're saying we're trying to preserve privacy and safety and consent. Opt-in has been suggested and I still don't see why that would have been so terrible or unimaginable. All I've heard you say against it is that he shouldn't have had to do it that way. Why shouldn't he? What is so important about opt out? What right does he have to forcing everyone else to respond to his actions? Why is our concern for privacy less important than his desire for participants?

Finally, I've heard you say a few times that it's unrealistic to try and control how other people behave. Obviously we cannot control other people's decisions. But what, are you arguing we're not supposed to have any reactions to what other people do, ever? Especially when it impacts us? What kind of sense does that make?

@polotek the reason you feel like nobody is hearing what you are saying and that you keep repeating yourself is that you aren't engaging the points being raised.

You're saying there are tools available, we're saying those tools aren't readily available or equally accessible to all users. You don't seem to believe that, but it is the case.

14 February at 15:58 | Open on blackqueer.life
Marco Rogers replied to the people's eva

@tillshadeisgone I did address the points. Very directly. I understand people have decided to yell at this one guy and try to force him to make his tool opt-in. I don't agree with that strategy, but whatever. My point is what happens when the next guy doesn't even ask you before he does it? Do you expect everyone who tries this to announce it?

14 February at 16:32 | Open on social.polotek.net
Marco Rogers replied to Marco

@tillshadeisgone my actually point that very few people want to address is if you care about privacy, why aren't you doing anything about your actual privacy? Why are you waiting until somebody announces that they're gonna do something you're uncomfortable with? Why aren't you rethinking the decisions about what instance you joined and what controls you have?

"I'm concerned about harassment on the internet. I guess I have no choice but to join the dogpile on this one guy".

14 February at 16:35 | Open on social.polotek.net
wet forest moon folklorist replied to Marco

@polotek thanks Marco, you’re making a ton of sense and speaking clearly. these are great conversations to be having and I appreciate you opening a few new ways to think about it

14 February at 16:47 | Open on alaskan.social
the people's eva replied to Marco

@polotek I mean, my personal answer is that I have done something about it. I've moved servers multiple times and currently I am primarily using an instance that I own.

But as I mentioned earlier, the things I have that allowed me to make those decisions and follow through with those actions are not available to everybody in equal measures. Furthermore, migrating servers is considerably easier than it used to be, as I understand it. But it's an imperfect process that can still sever connections even if you're very careful about how you do it.

When we're talking about an important project like the bridge, all I am saying is that it would be nice if the person doing it would consider those who are not as replete in the technical know how, time, and determination that makes all of these features easier to navigate. They deserve to be considered too. Their consent should have been sought through an opt-in mechanism.

This is one of my biggest issues with a tech heavy space like the fediverse. A lot of people seem to think everyone who doesn't know as much as they do about technology are fucking idiots. Not everyone who has trouble moving servers is unintelligent or reckless with their privacy. The condescension from people who work in the field about what every hypothetical user should be able to do easily is absurd and alienating. We should be making decisions with all of our users in mind, NOT JUST THE SAVVY ONES. It's not unreasonable and it's not unfair.

And in the category of questions not addressed, WHY is it so important that he gets to do this?! What's so hard about opt-in????

I've asked you multiple times, and despite you claiming to have addressed every point raised to you directly, you haven't said anything about it. So I'm not going to say anything else to you until you answer.

@polotek I mean, my personal answer is that I have done something about it. I've moved servers multiple times and currently I am primarily using an instance that I own.

But as I mentioned earlier, the things I have that allowed me to make those decisions and follow through with those actions are not available to everybody in equal measures. Furthermore, migrating servers is considerably easier than it used to be, as I understand it. But it's an imperfect process that can still sever connections even...

14 February at 17:23 | Open on blackqueer.life
Marco Rogers replied to the people's eva

@tillshadeisgone I did address it. But sure. I'll do it yet again. I didn't say that I think he should be able to do this. I don't have an opinion either way. What I said was nobody can stop him. Nobody is in charge. You keep trying to have a moral argument with me and I'm politely declining. I don't have any power to dictate what that guy does and does not get to do. And I'm making decisions accordingly.

14 February at 17:33 | Open on social.polotek.net
Marco Rogers replied to Marco

@tillshadeisgone is that clear? I know it's not the answer you were hoping for. But it is a direct answer. Is there a different way I can directly answer your question so that you don't have to keep repeating it? Let me know.

14 February at 17:34 | Open on social.polotek.net
the people's eva replied to Marco

@polotek actually, that was helpful. My last response will be this:
Sometimes people get upset when other people do things that they don't like that affect them, even when they have no power to stop them from doing it.

And it's great for you and for me, who have our own instances, and who have taken whatever steps we felt were necessary in light of that. So I can understand why it's not important to you.

But there are other people, who don't have what we have, who get to have it be important to them. They get to be upset. Hell, I'm in community with some of these folks so I'm upset too.

I guess that's just going to be baffling to some people and I'll just make my peace with it

@polotek actually, that was helpful. My last response will be this:
Sometimes people get upset when other people do things that they don't like that affect them, even when they have no power to stop them from doing it.

And it's great for you and for me, who have our own instances, and who have taken whatever steps we felt were necessary in light of that. So I can understand why it's not important to you.

14 February at 17:55 | Open on blackqueer.life
Marco Rogers replied to the people's eva

@tillshadeisgone none of this is "baffling" to me. I understand everything about why people are upset. You seem to confused because I'm still suggesting that being upset is not sufficient to solve the actual problem. People seem to think that having random strangers acknowledge that you're right to be upset will somehow make everything okay.

14 February at 20:28 | Open on social.polotek.net
Jennifer Moore replied to Marco

@polotek

Is it like, you're looking at this bridge episode as indicative of the overall Fediverse structure being inadequate for privacy/safety, whereas most people (me too I admit) have had their focus on the shape of that one particular situation?

kind of like "don't get hung up on this one particular example with this one particular guy, there's a bigger picture which needs attention"?

@tillshadeisgone

14 February at 21:04 | Open on scicomm.xyz
Tully replied to Marco

@polotek @tillshadeisgone someone else always _does_ try. and we have to yell at them _too_, or our privacy goes out the fucking window. we're fucking tired of it!

15 February at 1:51 | Open on weirder.earth
mnemonicoverload replied to Marco

@polotek
A bridge is not federation though. There are very real technical differences with unique concerns and vulnerabilities.

If / when BlueSky decides to enable federation on their AT protocol then Fediverse servers (that are capable of multiprotocol support) will be free to choose to add support for it on a per server basis and that will be actual federation.

@tillshadeisgone

16 February at 1:49 | Open on libranet.de
Go Up