Email or username:

Password:

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

@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.

14 February at 12:07 | Wall-to-wall | Open on blackqueer.life
11 comments
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
Go Up