5 ms·

> which meant some clients may not honor the private status of theses posts. Does this mean they may have accidentally published a message intended as private,

> which meant some clients may not honor the private status of theses posts. Does this mean they may have accidentally published a message intended as private, to the public? If so, I don’t think I can imagine a more efficient way to rob me of any confidence I ever had in Mastodon…

rogerbraun 9y ago
Yes, and this was known to the main developer. There were easy ways to make it at least private if the other server was trusted, but they chose to not implement them.
- kemenaran 9y ago
  Which is why they switched to dual OStatus / ActivityPub broadcasting – except for private messages, which are now only sent over ActivityPub. All of this without breaking compatibility across instances running different versions; quite a nice piece of engineering IMHO.
  - rogerbraun 9y ago
    this doesn't make much sense. The very easy way to add AP-level privacy to ostatus was to just use a different salmon endpoint for private messages. This way, messages would never have federated to servers that don't respect privacy settings (by accident. if the server leaks on purpose, that's a different story). This solution was discussed at length with mastodon devs before the implementation of the private messages. It was ignored. Now we have a situation were Mastodon is likely to switch off OStatus soon, leaving behind all those projects that don't have the dev resources to rewrite their core federation systems every few years. The Ostatus/AP dual stack is also pretty hacky and not even valid according to the AP spec, although it's getting better all the time.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ams6110 9y ago
Socal media is orthogonal to privacy. If you want to keep something private, don't post it on a social media platform -- or at least, encrypt it out of band before you do.
- jrochkind1 9y ago
  I don't think "orthogonal" means what you think it means.
  - dvt 9y ago
    If so, he's in good company[1] :) [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103690.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01...
    - jrochkind1 9y ago
      ha!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - zardo 9y ago
    To expand on that... If social media is orthogonal to privacy, then there should be no conflict combing the two concepts to create (privacy + social media). If they are incompatible, they aren't orthogonal, they are opposed.
- luk32 9y ago
  I think you meant antisymmetric. Orthogonal means "irrelevant to". But it's like saying that publishing is opposite to privacy. Yeah... It is so by design and definition.
- lioeters 9y ago
  Perhaps "antithetical" to privacy.
- 9y ago

rogerbraun 9y ago

Yes, and this was known to the main developer. There were easy ways to make it at least private if the other server was trusted, but they chose to not implement them.

kemenaran 9y ago
Which is why they switched to dual OStatus / ActivityPub broadcasting – except for private messages, which are now only sent over ActivityPub. All of this without breaking compatibility across instances running different versions; quite a nice piece of engineering IMHO.
- rogerbraun 9y ago
  this doesn't make much sense. The very easy way to add AP-level privacy to ostatus was to just use a different salmon endpoint for private messages. This way, messages would never have federated to servers that don't respect privacy settings (by accident. if the server leaks on purpose, that's a different story). This solution was discussed at length with mastodon devs before the implementation of the private messages. It was ignored. Now we have a situation were Mastodon is likely to switch off OStatus soon, leaving behind all those projects that don't have the dev resources to rewrite their core federation systems every few years. The Ostatus/AP dual stack is also pretty hacky and not even valid according to the AP spec, although it's getting better all the time.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ams6110 9y ago

Socal media is orthogonal to privacy. If you want to keep something private, don't post it on a social media platform -- or at least, encrypt it out of band before you do.

jrochkind1 9y ago
I don't think "orthogonal" means what you think it means.
- dvt 9y ago
  If so, he's in good company[1] :) [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103690.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01...
  - jrochkind1 9y ago
    ha!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- zardo 9y ago
  To expand on that... If social media is orthogonal to privacy, then there should be no conflict combing the two concepts to create (privacy + social media). If they are incompatible, they aren't orthogonal, they are opposed.
luk32 9y ago
I think you meant antisymmetric. Orthogonal means "irrelevant to". But it's like saying that publishing is opposite to privacy. Yeah... It is so by design and definition.
lioeters 9y ago
Perhaps "antithetical" to privacy.
9y ago