4 ms·
Ah Gizmodo, always the paragon of good journalism. The person has explicitly asked her tweets not be used in external websites, and of course this zombie tabloi
by khalic 10mo ago
Ah Gizmodo, always the paragon of good journalism. The person has explicitly asked her tweets not be used in external websites, and of course this zombie tabloid doesn't give a damn
- AndrewDucker 10mo agoThe post they quoted is the one that's marked as "do not share".
- nkrisc 10mo agoIt’s a request, and requests may be denied or ignored. If they cared, they wouldn’t post publicly or the service would not allow that message to embedded. An enforceable request is called a “demand”, and unless you’re actually capable of enforcing it, it is in fact still just a request. It would have been polite to honor the request, but they are under no obligation to do so. Don’t make public posts if you don’t want them publicly displayed.
- cl0ckt0wer 10mo agoTo paraphrase, you're not wrong, you're just a jerk.
- nkrisc 10mo ago“Please don’t show people my public post” is an absurd request to make. Why can the post even be embedded at all in this case? If Gizmodo was forced to screenshot it to circumvent that you might have a point.
- kachapopopow 10mo agojust because something is public doesn't mean it should be shared with everyone, imagine you and your (ex: facebook group) have a nice spot near a public lake that you worked to clean up and even put a nice fireplace / furniture around it and then some tiktoker comes and says check out this amazing spot and now it's ruined. Yes it's public, anyone outside the group can find and see it, but it's clearly meant to be enjoyed by the people who made it or/and happened to come across it by chance.
- nkrisc 10mo agoIt’s public or it’s not public.
- kachapopopow 10mo agoboiling things down to a binary output has always turned out great I presume
- nickthegreek 10mo agoIn this case it does. I use that same spot next to eh lake to rest with my wife and watch the ducks and appreciate nature. But then you can into the public area, changed it and added furniture and even a fireplace! Treating it like private land owned by you and then you get upset when others use it. There is an inherent disrespect and narcissism in the example you provided.
- nkrisc 10mo agoWell, in this case it is. Regardless the analogy is beside the point because this problem has a technical solution: Bluesky could disallow posts from being embedded per the author’s request. Also, does that message reflect the author’s preferences at the time they write that post, or is it possible it was enabled after Gizmodo embedded it?
- edgineer 10mo agoThese things happened, are notable, and even (or especially) embarrassing things should be remembered for history. A compromise would be to have screenshotted and crossed out names.
- mft_ 10mo agoNah, I think the point is that if you do something deliberately in public, be it social media or something tangible in the real world, you relinquish control over its usage. If you don’t like this, then you can either try to restrict things to an extent e.g. by obscurity, like posting a YouTube video as unlisted, or building your fireplace somewhere public but remote or hidden, or you keep things enforceably private, like a private online group, or building on someone’s land.
- llm_nerd 10mo agoDo not read this comment. Wait...you're still reading, defying my T&Cs! The tag to not display on external websites is up to Bluesky to enforce. I mean, you understand those Bluesky chirps or whatever are literally being served by Bluesky, right?
- throawayonthe 10mo agoit is being 'enforced' by the bsky embed, the post not shown is the quoted one: https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile%2Fdid%3Aplc%3Aanz3avl2tehl5drupexdxzvs%2Fpost%2F3m7kkfpvkj223&viewtype=tree https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile...
- llm_nerd 10mo agoAh this makes much more sense. So instead of it being a label on the embedded item, it's noting the one that's missing.
- throawayonthe 10mo agoThe person who has that setting is the user being quoted, not the top-level post; the bluesky is indeed blocking that post in question, so it isn't appearing on Gizmodo See here :https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile%2Fdid%3Aplc%3Aanz3avl2tehl5drupexdxzvs%2Fpost%2F3m7kkfpvkj223&viewtype=tree https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile...
- zenethian 10mo agoYou didn’t click into it, did you? The top level post did not have that restriction, but instead the post it replies to does. Go look. The actual message in the bsky widget could be improved to state that the label is masking the original post and not the reply.