3 ms·
I mostly don't like this take because it presumes a precise definition of privacy that we all agree on. And it's not even remotely close to that, which is why I
by jrm4 7mo ago
I mostly don't like this take because it presumes a precise definition of privacy that we all agree on. And it's not even remotely close to that, which is why I think the Bluesky model is perhaps insidious.
- fritzo 7mo agoGood point. For sake of argument, how about this stratification of privacy levels: twitter/x/bluesky - a big tech company owns your data mastodon - a grassroots community organization owns your data zulip - someone you've met personally owns the data your blog - you own the data (and yes these are a bit of a category error, but to achieve privacy maybe we should broaden the category and sacrifice reach)
- jrm4 7mo agoWell, the problem is, now the word "owns" isn't really helpful either? Because you have "possesses" (which can be anyone) vs. "controls?" Twitter - single point of big company external control Mastodon - One or multiple unverifiable fallible likely grassroots, points of external control Bluesky - Once out, merely the illusion of control, because your data is out there, verifiable?.