poswald

@polotek@polotek.net > People do not feel that the tools necessary to protect themselves *are in their hands*.

This is absolutely the problem and also actually true as far as I can see. They don't have the tools. I'm not sure an instance block is enough to ensure data doesn't get across the bridge because the protocol itself is pretty damn aggressive about pushing data out.

If server A blocks server N (for nazi) and server B doesn't, then a post from A boosted by someone on B will get published to N.

Like 14 February at 2:56 | Wall-to-wall | Open on mastodon.social

3 comments

poswald

@polotek I think a lot of people on here are used to the way things are but the reason they are like that is due to social conventions, not protocol or app-level design. And therefore the main tool available to maintain it is by shouting about the social conventions.

14 February at 2:57 | Open on mastodon.social

poswald

@polotek The people complaining about the bridge keep referencing safety, but the safety is purely encoded in social conventions. Even right now without the bridge, if you block an instance your post can end up on that instance and the people there can reply and discuss it and you won't see any of it. That's fine for protecting yourself from seeing bad things but it doesn't protect you from swatting for instance.

14 February at 3:00 | Open on mastodon.social

Julian Lam

@poswald yes, but only if the server allows anonymous GETs of content. Because only the ID is passed around in a boost, if server A has authorized fetch enabled, then it will not return a usable Note to server N

14 February at 3:14 | Open on crag.social