For their use case it makes sense.
They want heightened privacy features like making likes and follows private, which is something that is incompatible with the current state of activitypub.
You’re telling me I brought this pitchfork all the way over here for nothing ?
You can go turn that garden bed over if ya want.
deleted by creator
Mastodon and Lemmy don’t actually share any data actually protected by GDPR, unless the users actively make it public (like using their real name).
Am I right in my understanding that if you run a federated Lemmy instance, you can see who has upvoted what, even on other instances?
Is that not something protected by GDPR?
No, things like your home address, your IP address, birth date, health conditions, religion, etc are PII.
Upvotes almost certainly falls into “legitimate purposes” since the data is required for moderation.
So, are you saying that Facebook holds basically no data covered by GDPR?
How’d you get that from that???
Well, ok, of that list they have my ip address, but nothing else.
They accept all of that information in one way or another.
Your instance has data covered by GDPR, but the data it sends to other instances is covered by the same exceptions as the data you send in a email. Without exceptions for legimitate interests it would be illegal to send an email from, say, mailbox to Gmail or Yandex Mail.
I guess that could be in regards to user profiling.
Since no fedi platform aggregates user data like “user xy always upvotes topic a, therefore I will show him more on topic a via an algorithm”, or shows algorithmic advertisements, or sells user data for advertisements etc, I don’t think it’s relevant to GDPR at the moment.
deleted by creator
GDPR doesn’t include things you choose to make public, otherwise no social media could show your posts or username to anyone. My only doubt about Lemmy and Mastodon is about DMs where people have a reasonable expectation that they are private but they are not.
Edit: and thinking about it, even DMs probably fall into the same exception as email.
That is wrong. GDPR of course covers public information. It simply does not force platforms to hide this kind of information. But transmission of these informations without user’s consent and especially sale of these informations could possibly be prohibited by a court referencing GDPR.
But simply transmitting it for the purposes of making the protocol work, falls under legimitate purposes, like sending an email to email server in China
Absolutely.
But if a fedi software/instance decided to do something else with this public data, it could get legally problematic. That is the point I’m making.
People probably should be more aware that what happens on here is mostly public and also why that’s a better alternative to only giving data to private networks run by companies with trade secrets.
Giving data out to everyone prevents an outsized amount of leverage being given to single companies. Facebook doesn’t have anywhere near as much kingmaking power if the same methods can be used by competitors or exposed and mitigated for outright.
Being open source, you also can know exactly what the fediverse is collecting and it’s currently a fuck load less than the massive data stream companies like Facebook record.
Well, we are an evil and creepy lot, aren’t we?
This will always be Morticia and Gomez Addams in my head.
Is it not?
There’s been multiple actors in the parts over the years but these two were perfect I think.
For those of us that grew up with the TV show, no. John Astin literally named the character he played. Before the television show the characters didn’t all have names.
The movies are fine, and there’s nothing wrong if you enjoy them. But for myself John Astin and Carolyn Jones are the iconic couple. But then I was born over a decade before the movies. But just two years after the television shows 1975 Halloween special. So it may be a generational thing.
I don’t really feel I need protecting from the Fediverse, more from the “regular” social networks
Right!?! I’m ok with anarchy, and a non-commercial, non-corporate social media. Not in any need of being protected, whatsoever.
To play devils advocate though, any “regular social media company” can tap into the fediverse and harvest all of the data and do whatever fucked up things they want to it. The fediverse doesn’t protect you from them, it just puts you outside their algorithm control. Though even that is debatable because it is possible that a lot of posters on Lemmy may have first seen the content from algorithm-driven sources.
You’re right, but I feel “regular social media companies” can do this on their own networks too, but pretend they don’t.
Oh for sure! It is a lose-lose for the general population no matter what way you look at it.
@[email protected] they even made a cute little graphic including some niche softwares, so cute
Definitely the biggest threats around
@[email protected] oh I see
Basically they see the Fediverse as a data breach with no actual control over what happen to data the moment it gets to other servers (actually true) and especially if GAFAM gets involved. I mean, I get this they want to stay super-private. But I think that private social networks is a bit naive as an ideaIf google actually integrates yt to the fediverse it might genuinely be the best thing they ever did, I genuinely hope they do cuz it’s the one centralised social media I actively use and the only google service I use in general.
Plus it goes without saying it objectively has the largest amount of high quality content regularly posted by thousands of people.
It could be the thing that would let a lot of users fully degoogle/decouple from google’s monopoly and bring a LOT more eyes onto the fediverse as a whole.
But why would Google do that?
I kind of see where they come from too, but the way they present it just seems strange
@Blaze Le wat
@Blaze Le wat
@Blaze aaaaaaaaaah… La frase es como el forro, pero es una incompatibilidad de principios que se traduce en aspectos técnicos (y una critica fuerte al hecho que Meta y google buscan federar)
@Blaze aaaaaaaaaah… La frase es como el forro, pero es una incompatibilidad de principios que se traduce en aspectos técnicos (y una critica fuerte al hecho que Meta y google buscan federar)
