So check it out: Mastodon decided to implement follower-only posts for their users. All good. They did it in a way where they were still broadcasting those posts (described as “private”) in a format that other servers could easily wind up erroneously showing them to random people. That’s not ideal.
Probably the clearest explanation of the root of the problem is this:
Something you may not know about Mastodon’s privacy settings is that they are recommendations, not demands. This means that it is up to each individual server whether or not it chooses to enforce them. For example, you may mark your post with unlisted, which indicates that servers shouldn’t display the post on their global timelines, but servers which don’t implement the unlisted privacy setting still can (and do).
Servers don’t necessarily disregard Mastodon’s privacy settings for malicious reasons. Mastodon’s privacy settings aren’t a part of the original OStatus protocol, and servers which don’t run a recent version of the Mastodon software simply aren’t configured to recognize them. This means that unlisted, private, or even direct posts may end up in places you didn’t expect on one of these servers—like in the public timeline, or a user’s reblogs.
That is super relevant for “private” posts by Mastodon. They fall into the same category as how you’ve been voting on Lemmy posts and comments: This stuff seems private, because it’s being hidden in your UI, but it’s actually being broadcasted out to random untrusted servers behind the scenes, and some server software is going to expose it. It’s simply going to happen. You need to be aware of that. Even if it’s not shown in your UI, it is available.
Anyway, Pixelfed had a bug in its handling of those types of posts, which meant that in some circumstances it would show them to everyone. Somebody wrote on her blog about how her partner has been posting sensitive information as “private,” and Pixelfed was exposing it, and how it’s a massive problem. For some reason, Dansup (Pixelfed author) taking it seriously and fixing the problem and pushing out a new version within a few days only made this person more upset, because in her (IMO incorrect) opinion, the way Dansup had done it was wrong.
I think the blog-writer is just mistaken about some of the technical issues involved. It sounds like she’s planning on telling her partner that it’s still okay to be posting her private stuff on Mastodon, marked “private,” now that Pixelfed and only Pixelfed has fixed the issue. I think that’s a huge mistake for reasons that should be obvious. It sounds like she’s very upset that Dansup made it explicit that he was fixing this issue, thinking that even exposing it in commit comments (which as we know get way more readership than blog posts) would mean people knew about it, and the less people that knew about it, the safer her partner’s information would be since she is continuing to do this apparently. You will not be surprised to discover that I think that type of thinking is also a mistake.
That’s not even what I want to talk about, though. I have done security-related work professionally before, so maybe I look at this stuff from a different perspective than this lady does. What I want to talk about is this type of comments on Lemmy, when this situation got posted here under the title “Pixelfed leaks private posts from other Fediverse instances”:
Non-malicious servers aren’t supposed to do what Pixelfed did.
Pixelfed got caught with its pants down
rtfm and do NOT give a rest to bad behaving software
dansup remains either incompetent for implementing badly something easy or toxic for federating ignoring what the federation requires
i completely blame pixelfed here: it breaks trust in transit and that’s unacceptable because it makes the system untrustworthy
periodic reminder to not touch dansup software and to move away from pixelfed and loops
dansup is not competent and quite problematic and it’s not even over
developers with less funding (even 0) contributed way more to fedi, they’re just less vocal
dansup is all bark no bite, stop falling for it
dansup showed quite some incompetence in handling security, delivering features, communicating clearly and honestly and treating properly third party devs
I sort of started out in the ensuing conversation just explaining the issues involved, because they are subtle, but there are people who are still sending me messages a day later insisting that Dansup is a big piece of shit and he broke the internet on purpose. They’re also consistently upset, among other reasons, that he’s getting paid because people like the stuff he made and gave away, and chose to back his Kickstarter. Very upset. I keep hearing about it.
This is not the first time, or even the first time with Dansup. From time to time, I see this with some kind of person on the Fediverse who’s doing something. Usually someone who’s giving away their time to do something for everyone else. Then there’s some giant outcry that they are “problematic” or awful on purpose in some way. With Dansup at least, every time I’ve looked at it, it’s mostly been trumped-up nonsense. The worst it ever is, in actuality, is “he got mad and posted an angry status HOW DARE HE.” Usually it is based more or less on nothing.
Dansup isn’t just a person making free software, who sometimes posts angry unreasonable statuses or gets embroiled in drama for some reason because he is human and has human emotions. He’s the worst. He is toxic and unhinged. He is keeping his Loops code secret and breaking his promises. He makes money. He broke privacy for everyone (no don’t tell me any details about the protocol or why he didn’t he broke it for everyone) (and don’t tell me he fixed it in a few days and pushed out a new version that just makes it worse because he put it in the notes and it’ll be hard for people to upgrade anyway so it doesn’t count)
And so on.
Some particular moderator isn’t just a person who sometimes makes poor moderation decisions and then doubles down on them. No, he is:
a racist and a zionist and will do whatever he can to delete pro-Palestinian posts, or posts that criticize Israel.
a vile, racist, zionist piece of shit, and anyone who defends or supports him is sitting at the table with him and accepts those labels for themselves.
And so on. The exact same pattern happened with a different lemmy.world mod who was extensively harassed for months for various made-up bullshit, all the way up until the time where he (related or not) decided to stop modding altogether.
It’s weird. Why are people so vindictive and personal, and why do they double down so enthusiastically about taking it to this personal place where this person involved is being bad on purpose and needs to be attacked for being horrible, instead of just being a normal person with a variety of normal human failings as we all have? Why are people so un-amenable to someone trying to say “actually it’s not that simple”, to the point that a day later my inbox is still getting peppered with insistences that Dansup is the worst on this private-posts issue, and I’m completely wrong and incompetent for thinking otherwise and all the references I’ve been digging up and sending to try to illustrate the point are just more proof that I’m horrible?
Guys: Chill out.
I would just recommend, if you are one of these people that likes to double down on all this stuff and get all amped-up about how some particular fediverse person is “problematic” or “toxic” or various other vague insinuations, or you feel the need to bring up all kinds of past drama any time anything at all happens with the person, that you not.
I am probably guilty of this sometimes. I definitely like to give people hell sometimes, if in my opinion they are doing something that’s causing a problem. But the extent to which the fediverse seems to like to do this stuff just seems really extreme to me, and a lot of times what it’s based on is just weird petty bullying nonsense.
Just take it it with a grain of salt, too, if you see it, is also what I’m saying. Whether it comes from me or whoever. A lot of times, the issue doesn’t look like such a huge deal once you strip away the histrionics and the assumption that everyone’s being malicious on purpose. Doubly so if the emotion and the innuendo is running way ahead of what the actual facts are.
You must log in or register to comment.
A highly relevant post, particularly the part “Address the Elephants in the Room”. Just imagine, for a moment, if all the people who were banned from Reddit for being too toxic were to come over here? In that case you would get… Lemmy.
Yet we are here as well. It is an odd mixture. And it is why we aren’t really growing (well, barely) despite all the fuck-ups done by Huffman. Meanwhile e.g. Bluesky is really gathering people together! That’s the difference that listening to people makes: they go where there’s a nice environment, which addresses their concerns, in large part bc it makes them feel heard.
People most definitely don’t come to Lemmy to be heard. Well, to be more precise, they do not stay once they learn that it isn’t going to happen, without MAJOR efforts on their part to block a goodly fraction of the Lemmy userbase that will not control their own words, hence making anyone who does not enjoy listening to such need to put in the work to do that for them.
Yeah. That’s one thing I think Piefed is really doing right. They’re trying to make it so that normal people will have a fairly pleasant normal-person experience.
I think Lemmy’s core developers including explicit acceptance for toxic online behavior, and some of the original core instances openly celebrating and modeling it, really may ruin the platform for the long term. And yes, you and dubvee are completely right as far as the lack of action in any respect by a lot of people who run the instances to do all that much of substance about the people who seem to want to ruin the experience on those instances.
You can read in my (successful) Petition to defederate from hexbear.net some stories not only about that instance but also some for Lemmy.ml, including an incident where a mod told a user that they (the mod) wanted to kill them (the OP), then double and tripled down on that thought, all entirely protected by the admins (discussed further here).
When I first considered leaving Reddit, this kind of thing gave me strong pause, and it was only the fact that Kbin.social also existed that got me even a toe-hold into the Lemmyverse. This despite me not caring about Mastodon and thus any of its Microblogs, which lead to me mostly interacting with Lemmy magazines remotely, though with different sorting metrics which did help a little for me to see content that was not merely highly upvoted by people using Lemmy (including hexbear.net, lemmy.ml, etc.) and instead prioritized more by like-minded people using Kbin, and then later Mbin.
PieFed goes MUCH further, providing not merely different voting metrics on mostly the same content but actual tools that even pro-authoritarian Lemmy users want (categories of communities, combined comments across cross-posts, hashtags, etc.), as well as people who want the opposite, it’s really extremely flexible.
And I think PieFed is the only hope for the Threadiverse to go mainstream. I’m not saying that I think that we necessarily will, or even that we all want to or should, just that if it were to happen, it won’t happen with Lemmy. I’m currently at 100% of people I’ve told about it irl actively chiding me for having so much as recommended it, which makes a great deal of sense only once you realize that (i) a Google search pulls up lemmy.ml as the top instance, (ii) that instance shows Local rather than All by default, and thus (iii) what someone will be exposed to is content making fun of Western society. Mainstream normal people don’t want that! I don’t want it either! We learn how to block it, but mainstream normal people don’t want to expend hours upon hours to make Lemmy usable - and by hours I mean like tens of, continually, as they keep swatting off the bullies, but there are always more.
The alternative would be to make better mod tools. Which on Lemmy are barely happening, extremely slowly. PieFed is still catching up to Lemmy in terms of base features though, e.g. there is a Preview option but only for posts but not for comments, and many Notifications point to things to read but then won’t actually show you the thing when you click on it (due to many reasons, possibly having been removed in the meantime, or being hidden by an auto-collapse or auto-hide feature, or you’ve blocked all the users from an instance but nonetheless notifications are still sent, etc.) - i.e. it still needs some polish. Hence in the meantime I am not recommending Threadiverse tools to anyone irl atm, unless they are already reading something here and then I recommend to check out PieFed:-).
Some people have privacy expectations that are not realistic in an unencrypted, federated, heterogeneous environment run by hobbyist volunteers in their spare time.
It you have something private and sensitive to share with a small audience, make a group chat on Signal. Don’t invite any reporters.
it’s not unrealistic to keep trust at the server level. following your rationale, you can’t trust my reply, or any, because any server could modify the content in transit. or hide posts. or make up posts from actors to make them look bad.
if you assume the network is badly behaved, fedi breaks down. it makes no sense to me that everything is taken for granted, except privacy.
servers will deliver, not modify, not make up stuff, not dos stuff, not spam you, but apparently obviously will leak your content?
fedi models trust at the server level, not user. i dont need to trust you, i need to trust just your server admin, and if i dont i defederate
There’s a significant distinction between servers that are actively malicious as you’re describing and servers that aren’t fully compatible with certain features, or that are simply buggy.
Lemmy, for example modifies posts federated from other platforms to fit its format constraints. One of them is that a post from Mastodon with multiple images attached will only show one image on Lemmy. Mastodon does it too: inline images from a Lemmy post don’t show on vanilla Mastodon.
I’ll note that Lemmy’s version numbers all start with 0. So do Piixelfed’s. That implies the software is unfinished and unstable.
This is my thought on it, too. I don’t disagree with any of the point OP is making, but I think a larger issue is people misusing ActivityPub platforms and trying to make them into something they’re not. It’s not meant to be a messenger, it’s not meant for privacy. Everything being public and transparent is part of the core design of the Fediverse. The idea of private groups/posts on the Fediverse seems counterintuitive to me.
Completely agree.
It is fine if you want to add privacy to a federated platform. If you wanted to, you would need to think through how to do it (probably it would involve either adding something specific and very carefully laid-out to the ActivityPub spec, or just doing like Lemmy does and switching to a whole other protocol like Matrix and warning the users that anything over ActivityPub is not private). Neither of those is what Mastodon did, but now they’re going around telling users they can have private posts, which is why I think they’re ultimately at fault in the situation that kicked off this whole shebang.
Just a random thought, if there is a need for privacy wouldn’t it be possible to create public / private encryption key for users so messages can be encrypted and exchanged.
This way what would be public is that there’s an exchange but nobody would be able to know what was said. It would make it at least message content private.
To make it a step further could exchange between servers also use it to encrypt which users exchange private message. I am thinking it could make it fully private then. Only sender and receiver servers could know which users were private messaging.
To keep it secure from the servers themself would require users to handle the encryption. See PGP for an idea of how much uptake that’s likely to get. If you mean for the servers to handle the encryption, that’s already the case, and the issue right now is that servers are privy to what users do, and by nature are a 3rd party in the convo.
You actually could do this kind of thing with AP. It’s designed to give a key pair to every user to use for signing all their activities, so so the some careful redesign, you might be able to do something like have the browser authenticating the user’s identity in a way that the server isn’t able to do, or even messages being sent encrypted in a way that the server can’t read.
In practice, the server keeps the user’s private keys, and moving away from that model would be difficult. But you could in theory redesign it away from that.
It’s not meant to be a messenger, it’s not meant for privacy. Everything being public and transparent is part of the core design of the Fediverse. The idea of private groups/posts on the Fediverse seems counterintuitive to me.
Just want to counter this: Privacy is in fact a part of ActivityPub. Stuff is only meant to be public if it is sent to the Public collection, otherwise it should only be delivered to the intended recipients, much like email. This is part of the core protocol, not any extension.
I definitely think it’s important to make people aware of the difference in the fedeiverse. Especially since that is not how it worked in non-federated social media
Well, where are you all when the Fedi cheerleading squad keeps posting about how bad it is that this or that competitor stores this or that information and how secure and private and great it is in Fedi servers because they don’t store anything?
Because I’ve spent years chiming in to explain these things in those and it normally just gets people angry and complaining that you’re shilling for corporate social media or whatever. The image being projected, both accidentally and on purpose is that no centralized data collection means your data on Fedi is private when it is extremely not.
I definitely agree, it’s advertised as private, when really it’s more “open” so that it’s not profitable I think
I think the confusion from fediverse’s claims of privacy stem from poor enunciation from its proponents. It is more private in the amount of passive data mining for ad tracking purposes compared to for profit social media. The architecture is designed to discourage these practices from the people that manage the infrastructure. And the price for that mechanism is, making public, data that cannot be monetised on a large scale, which for profit social media guaranteed “privacy” to(in quotes because it was private from prying eyes through E2EE but not your keys not your data.)
I can see where the confusion might arise for nontechnical people who aren’t familiar with the technical aspects of ActivityPub implementations. I don’t think there should be any confusion for technical people in understanding the architecture clearly guarantees a total lack of private data, seeing as how decentralisation works.
It’s perhaps a communication problem, where the privacy settings should clearly state this. Or these settings shouldn’t be offered. But maybe this current structure is fine for most people?
Regardless, it’s how existing social media used to work. In that sense, federated social media can’t offer an alternative and that could be a problem for some.
Yeah, but offering something that claims to be private, but isn’t, is actually much worse than refusing to offer something that’s private. Even if people want the private feature.
Truly private posts just are going to require something that isn’t ActivityPub, because ActivityPub just isn’t designed to give assurances about what’s going to happen to an activity that you are sending off to some other server. Or, the other option would be to go through the whole process of adding it into the spec in a thought through fashion instead of just hacking it in and moving on. Although, I do kind of get why Mastodon doesn’t want to go through that snail’s pace process for every single protocol change they would need to be able to make things work.
This is exactly why ActivityPub makes for such a mediocre replacement for the big social media apps. You have to let go of any assumptions that at least some of your data remains exclusive to the ad algorithm and accept that everything you post or look at or scroll past is being recorded by malicious servers. Which, in turn, kind of makes it a failure, as replacing traditional social media is exactly what it’s supposed to do.
The Fediverse also lacks tooling to filter out the idiots and assholes. That kind of moderation is a lot easier when you have a centralised database and moderation staff on board, but the network of tiny servers with each their own moderation capabilities will promote the worst behaviour as much as the best behaviour.
But really, the worst part is the UX for apps. Fediverse apps suck at setting expectations. Of course Lemmy publishes when you’ve upvoted what posts, that’s essential for how the protocol works, but what other Reddit clone has a public voting history? Same with anyone using any form of the word “private” or even “unlisted”, as those only apply in a perfect world where servers have no bugs and where there are no malicious servers.
This poster… its like every other social media platform is not anonymous?!
Why should this one be? Did you really think i.e. reddit wouldn’t corpo-analyze the fork out of your data with data science practices? Anonymous upvotes? LOL
IMO, Dan has some responsibility but more of it lies with Mastodon and other microblogging software that labels this post type as “private”, “followers only” or similar without any further explanation. It needs to be clear that it’s dependent on good faith and competence of remote servers that may collect that information.
Moreover we need to do a better job of letting users know that anything posted on the internet, and especially anything posted to the fediverse where it’s backed up on potentially thousands of servers, should be assumed to be publicly-visible and eternal. If nothing else, it will be backed up on the internet archive. If you want to communicate privately, this is the wrong place.
I wish there was a private social media platform but it seems like the closest we’re going to get is Signal.
Also “the bullying problem” has nothing to do with the Fediverse and everything to do with people in general and the erosion of nuance.
Why are people so vindictive and personal, and why do they double down so enthusiastically about taking it to this personal place where this person involved is being bad on purpose and needs to be attacked for being horrible, instead of just being a normal person with a variety of normal human failings as we all have?
First time on the internet? This happens everywhere, more so when you’re anonymous or pseudonymous, but whenever you’re behind a screen and everyone on the other side is just a username being controlled by an idiot or a troll.
Agreed. Reddit and Twitter were bad for bullying, doxxing, or just general nastiness, I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen on Mastodon, or the Fediverse in general, but it’s nothing like as bad.
Until someone does something not FOSS’y or anti-linux.
Or you try to tell them the government they are cheering for is not a leftist one, people here loves to defend them based only on the propaganda that reaches them and get MAD if you don’t join the yes-wave.
If Mastodon/Fedi was at the scale those platforms are we would see more harassment, absolutely. It remains to be proven but I think federation enables a lot more eyes on content which implies harassing material can be removed more quickly.
Federation/decentralization solves a lot of problems over centralized social media, but ultimatley you can’t engineer human nature.
If you build it, they will come
People get so weird about Dansup.
Who would’ve thunk that misusing the same type for both public and private posts (with a sprinkle of weird mention rules to determine the visibility) could backfire?
Well, definitely not Mastodon devs. Lemmy’s current approach of using an entirely different type is much better.
If you’re interested in some details, I recently wrote a comment about it: https://lemmyverse.link/lemmings.world/comment/14476151
lemmy’s approach still relies on audience targeting for privacy, just like mastodon. using a distinct object type (which is off spec btw) is “more secure” just because nobody else knows what lemmy is doing
I said better, not more secure. It’s not as easy to accidentally leak the message. It’s equally easy to intentionally leak it.
Yeah, the whole thing of “if #public is in
toand the user is incc, it means one thing, but if it’s the other way around, it means something different” just reeks of “IDK I just wanted to hack it up and move on and IDGAF how platforms other than Mastodon are going to wind up handling it.” Which is fine… as long as your users universally understand that that’s your level of care towards honoring non-public visibility settings they’re setting on their posts.Yep. Sadly, Lemmy will move on to implement this exact horrible mess in future versions.
The current ChatMessage approach is much better than crazy shenanigans with to/cc/mentions.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say you’re both wrong. Here me out.
As other commenters have said, there should never be any expectation of privacy on the fediverse. DMs here and private items are not actually private, they’re quite literally blasted out to anyone who listens. I feel like I have to say that a lot. I actually like how Lemmy handles it, it warns you that it’s unencrypted and that it recommends Matrix (and you can put your matrix handle on your profile).
However. I’m also disillusioned by Dansup. He made a great project with Pixelfed. It got off the ground and has a great following. However, I’ve read through the code, I’ve tried to spin it up, hell even tried to help contribute - but it’s a spaghetti’d mess of unmaintainable code. What irks me is rather than dive in and fix the code, help those who honestly want to spin up his projects, he starts a completely separate project (off the same spaghetti’d base that barely scales), and goes on a whole PR junket talking about it. Then when I see people asking questions of his code or how to do things he usually jumps down their throats - or completely ignores them.
And honestly the biggest thing that irked me was that I didn’t feel he gave credit to the hundreds - thousands of other people who work to make the fediverse work. Pixelfed is a great experience - but it’s one of many all working together, and the developers are a huge chunk, but you have the infrastructure, us admins hosting, those out there vocalizing it, those trying to start communities, it’s an ecosystem, and I just felt like he ignored the fediverse and instead pushed Pixelfed.
good reply but private items are not “quite literally blasted out to anyone who listens”, AP spec has audience targeting and content gets sent capillarly, like email. a Note for bob gets sent ONLY to bob’s server
as:Public content gets broadcasted by some software (relays) and inbox forwarded by others (mastodon, mitra).
What parts of the codebase did you look at and not like how they were implemented?
Why is it a problem if he makes server software and then publicizes it? Like can you show a couple of examples of authors of some other software who are giving credit to the hundreds - thousands of other people, and how they are giving credit? What are they doing differently than Dansup?
A great example is his handling of Laravel, scaling, and Docker. It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t have a huge understanding of Docker - or at least hasn’t managed docker images at scale. A huge thing there that I ran into constantly is that the Pixelfed containers both are 1) Stateful and worse than that 2) depend on each other’s volumes. These are both anti patterns specifically called out in the docker best practices. It ultimately means that the Pixelfed containers must share the same host as it’s workers. He put a lot of time and effort into building scripts that would simplify the setup for a docker compose file, but never thought horizontally - scaling these containers out on a cluster or separating workers off away from the web-api nodes at all.
I spent 3 weeks trying to de-tangle that all and got nowhere. I’ve been watching the guys over at Pixelfed Glitch ( a fork of pixelfed ), and from what I see they’re trying to do the same thing. I wish them godspeed. Until then, I can’t recommend Pixelfed as it just can’t horizontally scale. Sure you can throw a more expensive machine at the problem, but that’s not a fix.
As for the last, I don’t have any examples - and I think that’s because no one else has gone on a press junket like he has. The owners of Mastodon started a foundation a while back, I think that’s the most official news I’ve heard out of them. I think that’s what bothered me - for the vast majority of people that was their first chance to hear about the open web. Instead of saying “We have a thing called the fediverse. I’ll spare you the details but you can choose Pixelfed, Mastodon, even Wordpress or many others, and they all work together”. Instead all I heard anywhere was Pixelfed. Feel free to call BS there, maybe he did somewhere and I just missed it.
“Doesn’t scale because the containers are set up wrong” is different from “unmaintainable code” though. What of the code was bad? I’ve looked at a bunch of fedi projects and Pixelfed didn’t strike me as either particularly good or particularly bad.
As for the last, I don’t have any examples
?
I mean, that is sort of what I expected. Mastodon doesn’t publicize Wordpress. Lemmy doesn’t publicize mbin. They all, mostly, mention a little bit of the context that they can interoperate with other federated services, but it doesn’t strike me as weird or malicious that someone would write a project and then promote that project. That sounds normal.
Actually, both Mastodon and Lemmy chose to implement sort of their own versions of ActivityPub, and that actually does strike me as selfish behavior. It means that mostly they are their own independent platforms that run “on top of” ActivityPub instead of enabling full interoperation with the other stuff. Doing it that way was hard to avoid, because the design of ActivityPub to me isn’t great, but this situation is actually a perfect example of that: Mastodon implemented a new feature in a way that would break (in a really jarring privacy-violating-to-some-extent way) until everyone else copied their implementation exactly. I’m not aware of Pixelfed doing anything like that. Mastodon and Lemmy can both get away with presenting themselves as “the fediverse” and forcing everyone else into copying one implementation or the other if they want things to actually work, and they both show very little interest in making it easy. If you want to pick out sins of various fedi projects to start to point out that are disrespecting the other projects in the space, something like that is where I would start.
Everyone I ever talked to told me “well yes we have to implement our own version of ActivityPub because AP is under-defined”. In most cases it is defined what AP does, but not how. Therefore individual programers go in and figure out on their own how a certain thing they are building for their platform should be structured in AP.
Now, every project could simply go “I will copy the way Pixelfed implements it”. But why should PF have that priviledge?
Agreed. It’s not completely their fault. But also, they’ve run further than they needed to with the “I’m in charge of what protocol I’m going to speak to other instances running my own software” than they needed to. Case in point, this exact issue with “private” posts. A lot of things had to be fleshed out more so than they are in the AP spec. This feature needed to be handled more carefully than that.
I shared a bit about exactly this here: https://lemmyverse.link/lemmings.world/comment/14476151
deleted by creator
Using Laravel as a framework should be the first red flag, I yet have to meet a Laravel dev who understands architecture (and I interviewed quite a bit of them). That framework is several anti-patterns bundled into a nice package.
I mean, I completely agree but last time I said that people flamed me over it. If it was still 2013 then I’d look more into it, but today it’s such a monolithic architecture
I actually like how Lemmy handles it, it warns you that it’s unencrypted and that it recommends Matrix
It also uses an entirely separate AP type that’s not used for anything else (ChatMessage) unlike Mastodon which uses Note, which is also used for: Mastodon posts and comments, Lemmy comments, most likely others.
ChatMessage type also has strict requirements about recipients, the chances to leak them are slimmer. Additionally, if the target app does not support the type, it’s very unlikely it will handle it at all, but Note will most likely be handled in some way.
In conclusion, Lemmy PMs are very hard to leak accidentally (still very easy to leak intentionally).
Sadly, Lemmy will be moving to Mastodon-style PMs.
deleted by creator
This kind of indirect bullying is kind of unavoidable online, because of the lack of direct contact, you don’t empathize much with the other sensitive being. Until we get that perfect education to civility that may happen in 2000 years if we still exist. Maybe one solution is to have strong rules and moderation about personal attacks. But then it’s the moderators that will get bullied for censorship and end up crucified on the power tripping bastard community.
And you have summed up why I block those communities. There are surely cases of people abusing power, but a majority of it is just people wanting to stir up shit.
Maybe one solution is to have strong rules and moderation about personal attacks. But then it’s the moderators that will get bullied for censorship and end up crucified on the power tripping bastard community.
When people try to call out power tripping against valid moderation, they get called out on !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
I don’t think that blog author is male, btw.
Oop. She is not. Fixed.
Back when I was younger and naïve, I would Nicolas Cage OP.
I’m now more mature and open minded, and I can say I wholesomely agree with @Zak@lemmy.world’s statement ITT.
Technologists have very little patience for people that are technologically illiterate. And when you’re fighting to liberate people against corporations that send hitlists against you, patience runs faster. My hope is that people like OP can empathize that while yes, public technologies can be harmful and downright hostile, they can take their time to comprehend concepts technologist took their time to write down and document for.
If you want private conversations with peers, it must be encrypted, it must be forward secret, and it must be authenticatable.
XMPP, SimpleXchat, & Signal are the only three that fit these specifications.
I have the first two (check my bio👈😎👈), the latter I do not trust.
the latter I do not trust.
Am I reading the article wrong? Is it not a good thing that they refused to comply with the hostile anti-encryption law?
They refused to operate ON a country with a hostile anti encryption law as a threat.
Signal could have mocked the France government for being authoritarian fascist censorious anti-mathematics pieces of turd, but leave USERS stuck in France with the danger of the government’s bs law.
A metaphor for ease of comprehension: Signal threatens a farmer for hunting chicken down, by ceasing all freeing-chicken-from-the-farm operations. Not killing the farmer, but leaving the chicken without the tools to liberate themselves.
Yes, I read Animal Farm.
You know they can’t legally operate there if they don’t follow the law, right?
Pulling out is the only form of protest they have as a company. The rest is up to its users.
Anyway, if it happened, you could still use Signal anyway, perhaps with the help of a relay like other countries who prefer spying over privacy.
Privacy and encryption are inalienable human rights, even in authoritarian hells like North Korea. There’s is no reason to comply with bs laws.
If you don’t see mocking a fascist government as a form of protest, I’m not so sure how I can help you see the harm in leaving.
That last paragraph is the problem, they know they are a line of defense for many vulnerable people in France. So leaving them to their own devices is a form of complicit acceptance.
There is a reason: you will be sued out of existence. And the bit about North Korea made me laugh, so thanks.
You get sued no matter what authoritarian country your tools get used in, it doesn’t mean Signal Technology Foundation has to comply with French law, as they are not beholden by their jurisdiction. That is why I used North Korea as an e.g.: Kim Jong Un can’t sue the world.
But if you officially operate somewhere, they can sue you, I thought that was common knowledge?
Anyway, not complying with local laws and operating in the country can get you in some serious trouble. And the trouble will escalate until you comply or pull out of the country.
Kim Jong Un can sue anyone. Like, they can sue Signal if they want. Sure, they have no way to enforce it, but they can sue (and win the case). It’s not like this would be a first, that happened quite a few times. Especially in dictatorship.
So, I was probably (one of) the first to post that “Pixelfed leaks private posts” thing on here? I first wrote a long reply to this, but it sort if got away from me. The short version would be,
A) sure, the fediverse has a bullying problem in the sense that people do, and that that is usually exacerbated in any online comment field. People are awful, and that includes me, you, Dansup, and anybody reading this. We’re also usually pretty brilliant when nobody’s looking.
B) despite what I write above, I don’t take bullying lightly. I am really uncomfortable with how you use the generally phrased headline to address this specific case. You’re not writing about the fediverse as such, you’re casting Dansup as a victim.
C) Dan’s up, Dan’s down, Dan’s a victim, Dan’s throwing a fit online and then deleting the tweets. As you cite in OP, some people attribute all sorts of unrelated evil to him. Most of all, my impression is Dansup has as a hard time separating from his role as main developer on Pixelfed, Loops, etc, as online commenters has separating his work from (perceived) personal faults.
D) let’s imagine those projects were fully open sourced and developed by the community already. Would we be in the same situation here? Again, resorting to ad hominem bullying in online discussion is unacceptable, but I do question that Dansup is an unequivocable victim. Nor is he an evil mastermind who has engineered this situation to garner pity. He just seems to be extremely hard working, with a generous pinch of need for control of his projects.
you’re casting Dansup as a victim
Correct. The original blog post wasn’t really all that bullying, I just thought it was mistaken about the security issues involved. The subsequent comments (“incompetent” “toxic” “quite problematic” “funding funding funding” and so on) were what I would describe as bullying. And, it fits a pattern where people take some issue (often one like this where he didn’t even theoretically do anything wrong) and use it as a jumping-off point to start the personal attacks.
Dan’s up, Dan’s down, Dan’s a victim, Dan’s throwing a fit online and then deleting the tweets. As you cite in OP, some people attribute all sorts of unrelated evil to him. Most of all, my impression is Dansup has as a hard time separating from his role as main developer on Pixelfed, Loops, etc, as online commenters has separating his work from (perceived) personal faults.
What?
Why should he separate from his role as main developer? This makes no sense. “Sure those people got personally insulting with Dan for no reason at all, but you have to remember, he’s the main developer of these projects and he won’t separate from them. So it’s complicated.” What?
They should implement some form of pgp into private posts so only folks with the right key can decrypt
It sounds like she’s very upset that Dansup made it explicit that he was fixing this issue, thinking that even exposing it in commit comments (which as we know get way more readership than blog posts) would mean people knew about it, and the less people that knew about it, the safer her partner’s information would be since she is continuing to do this apparently. You will not be surprised to discover that I think that type of thinking is also a mistake.
I agreed with you at first because from your description it sounded like she was saying security through obscurity was a good thing. But that’s not the case.
What she’s saying in the blog post is that this a 0-day and should be handled according to the best practices for 0-day disclosure.
You have to decide if you want to
- publish the findings before the fix -> more people will know and exploit the vulnerability but users might be aware and may or may not be able to mitigate sharing even more
- publish the findings after the fix -> the opposite
I don’t pretend to know enough to judge which option is the best. But I can’t fault the blog author for pointing out that Dansup didn’t follow best practices.
more people will know and exploit the vulnerability
It’s not even a vulnerability, it’s how AP works by design, is the issue at hand here. Mastodon decided they wanted to implement something not supported by AP, and everybody else had to take the heat for not ‘doing it right’.
That is still not the point the commenter and the original blog author were making.
What we can take away from this episode is that Pixelfed implemented the fix in a way that suggests they would not handle a 0 day exploit with a “reql” vulnerability well. And having followed dansup’s projects for a while that doesnt surprise me, because he clearly prefers to work “chaoticly” than in a structured, regulated way.
The “taking the heat” is something completely seprrate and boils down to stupid people on the internet needing to be angry at someone.
I’m not sure you can make that conclusion. This isn’t a real vulnerability, and this isn’t a surprise to anybody who knows how the AP protocol works. Dansup didn’t reveal anything that was previously unknown, the blog author just has an axe to grind. It’s unfair to assume that an actual 0 day vulnerability would have been treated the same way.
Correct. And as I tangentially mentioned, even if you do think this needs to be kept secret, then the blog author would still be wrong, because this blog post is doing is doing way more “harm” by publicizing the issue than any amount of commit notes ever could.
But yes, trying to keep this secret like a 0-day is completely the backwards model for how to handle it.
I’m genuinely curious what you would call this and what distinguishes it from a vulnerability.
Leaving aside responsibility, the system could have been set up in a way that wouldn’t have exposed user data but wasn’t. This is now fixed and user data isn’t exposed via this method any longer. What is the right word for what it was at the moment this flaw was discovered?
Not me who downvoted you, FYI.
To me, a vulnerability is something unforeseen, that allows bad actors to exploit the system in an unintended manner. In this case, the system is working perfectly as designed. Just because another system decided to implement a new feature without consulting anybody else, does not make it a vulnerability. Or perhaps it does, but with the vulnerability on the side of Mastodon, since they’re the ones telling their users their post is private when it is actually nothing of the sort.
What would I call it? An unsupported feature. One that Mastodon forced everybody else to implement without asking or any respect.
I appreciate your reply and understand your perspective. I still don’t fully agree, it might be a matter of the point of view from which you look at this issue. But I think in essence we are on the same page.
Thanks for not abandoning the discussion!
I’d argue that it is still a vulnerability in this scenario. But point taken, it’s always important to find the root cause and not just put blame on the person who stumbled into the trap.
I don’t think dansup was in the wrong here. Yes, it’s a security issue I suppose, but the problem lies within the underlying protocol. Any server you interact with can ignore any privacy markers you add to posts, you’re just not supposed to do that.
Whether this is a 0day depends on what you expect out of the Fediverse. If you treat it like a medium where every user or server has the potential to be hostile, like you probably should, this is a mere validation logic bug. If you treat it like the social media many of its servers are trying to be, it’s a gross violation of your basic privacy expectations.
I’m OOTL,
who is Dansup? (missed the parentheses) What does this person have to do with private posts not being private?Dansup is a developer who made Pixelfed and Loops.
Depending on who you ask, he either fucked up Pixelfed in a way that exposed Mastodon users’ private posts, or else Mastodon implemented private posts poorly and he got caught in the crossfire. I’m firmly in the second camp, so much so that I think it’s misleading to describe it in that both-sides type of way, but regardless, that is the lay of the land of the drama.
Never trust the client, right? In this case, the client is another server, run by different people. If software A can fuck up software B, software B is the one that should be fixed with better security. Thanks for clarifying btw!
Yes. That is 100% my feeling.
Happy to be of service.
Why are people so vindictive and personal, and why do they double down so enthusiastically about taking it to this personal place where this person involved is being bad on purpose and needs to be attacked for being horrible, instead of just being a normal person with a variety of normal human failings as we all have?
I have a pet theory about this!
Humans can’t easily empathize with strings of text the way they do with voices and faces. When you read my posts you read it in your voice; I might as well be a figment of your imagination. As far as your subconscious is concerned, I am not actually a person. I’m an imaginary friend at best and an imaginary enemy at worst.
When someone beats up on me it’s because they’re imagining me as an enemy NPC, not a person with thoughts and feelings.
This is why arguing on the internet is basically pointless. We’re all just random encounters in the posting RPG.
Just as a mild counterexample, I’ve personally changed my views quite drastically over my time on reddit and now lemmy, and most of it was from individuals just sharing their own perspective.
I held some latent bigotry and misogyny, part of which I picked in my day to day life, and partly from 4ch. I won’t say I’ve eliminated it completely, but I think I’ve become a better person from my interactions online.
If we’re not out here trying to actively learn from and help other people, then what the heck are we doing?
Yeah. I do think communicating over the internet even with people you disagree with is possible to do, and it can be super productive. Can be. It just takes conscious effort to do so, I guess not much different from when you can talk them out face-to-face.
I think you can overcome the empathy gap caused by the anonymous text format if you make the effort to empathize with people on the internet, but it requires you to want to make the effort in the first place.
Empathy offline or over video or on the phone is much more instinctual - in fact, it requires effort to resist empathy.
Honestly? I live in a small town, and face to face isn’t much better. People are incredibly bigoted, and might be polite to your face but incredibly judgemental and small minded, especially to anyone perceived as different. Empathy is a skill that needs to be practised, like meditation. And many people lack it both online and off.
But people are polite to your face. On the internet there’s no face, so that goes away.
I think part of that comes from empathy, though obviously part also comes from fear of confrontation and habit. It all adds up to offline interactions being far less hostile than on the Internet because they’re not face-to-face.
This is also known as Internet Fuckwad Theory.
Mostly I agree but I disagree in this way:
Face to face, especially in a small community, some people take it upon themselves to establish what they see as the right and proper rules for the community. Everyone must have a grassy lawn cut to exactly three inches is kind of the least terrible end of this.
“Queer people are a danger to our children”, “Everyone must be in a straight, monogamous relationship, that produces children who aren’t autistic or disabled in any way,” etc. and, because it’s in person, they have much more power to ruin lives.
We see some of that behavior in online communities but people generally have much more ability to “vote with their feet” or even abstain online.
I had Instagram for five minutes before they started trying to share my account with acquaintances who didn’t know I was queer. (Which is a crime as far as I’m concerned but not relevant.) I immediately closed my account. Imagine that had been a neighborhood I’d just moved into. It might not even be possible for me to move before I faced months of the real life consequences of being forcibly outed by a neighbor.
There’s a veneer of politeness in meat space. Sometimes there’s more than a veneer to it. But often not.
They’re nasty pieces of shit when they don’t have to look at the person they’re hurting or putting in danger, but that only supports my theory. There’s an empathy disconnect that’s created when there isn’t a human face or voice immediately in front of them. Once they aren’t in danger of an in-person interaction all the venom comes out. Online, that’s basically all of our interactions.
I should point out the phenomenon where a minority in a community will magically become “one of the good ones” so that the bigots can continue hating minorities while empathizing with their neighbor. This is also becoming less common as we grow more isolated from each other and everyone moves online, destroying the potential for that face-to-face interaction.
I do concede that there has been a trend towards xenophobia that has been exacerbated by filter bubbles and even more by algorithms. But the balance is that people who once had no choice but to suffer ostracism and extreme isolation have been able find community online and have improved mental health and outcomes in many ways.
I certainly found this myself in the early days of the internet before the iron fist of corporatism grabbed this fledgling space, determined to extract value from it, and creating the nightmares of isolation and hate that are now Farcebork and its ilk. Fedi has been a welcome return to smaller communities that have to do the necessary work of self management, which reduces the hate and isolation that is promoted by antisocial media, even if it doesn’t stop it altogether.
My point is, the internet isn’t worse. Humans can be good or bad, but certain environments make them behave in worse ways, and these environments can exist both online and off.
And because you can’t punch me in the face over the Internet (yet).
Can’t confirm. When I was young and hanging out in online chat rooms, I regarded the others as real and experienced a full range of emotions toward them. They were my acquaintances, friends, crushes, or enemies. Definitely didn’t see them as NPCs. If I had, I would never have had such strong feelings about any of them.
But that’s just me. Others’ mileage may vary.
Chatrooms might be different. In a chatroom you get to know different users, even if you never know them as anything other than BigBallz420
On message boards or comments sections, though, there’s too many people to keep track of. You might never hear from me again. That makes it a lot harder, I think.
But yeah, mileage may vary.
Also this isn’t really a super fleshed out theory based on actual evidence. Just vibes.
Yeah. There are a lot of subtle cues that keep things in check, that let people express frustration or disagreement with each other and it still be okay and kept in a balanced fashion, when it’s happening in person. In typing that all goes out the window. It takes conscious effort to be able to remember the social aspect and not just get carried away with your typing and decide the other person is horrible and you need to attack (or just take something without the right context and think they’re going on the attack when they’re not.) Like I say, I’m guilty of treating it pretty carelessly sometimes too.
