The way I see it, community-based social media is a public forum, where every post / comment is public (Obviously less applicable on an individualized platform like Instagram). Everyone has an inherent right to privacy, but not when they’re using a platform like Lemmy. Twitter and Facebook are fundamentally different platforms. You can’t expect privacy while using lemmy, so use a different platform to post private content.
These people should be looking into spinning up Matrix servers if they want a private club with real privacy so bad.
It’s definitely a weird thing to constantly be upset about: “People can see what I posted in public when I post them publicly!”
It’s like complaining about people being able to take photos with you in the background in public. It’s a public space, there is no expectation of privacy.
If you want a private internet experience, you have to put some work in.
I have a feeling that you might be misunderstanding what the actual purpose of lemmy is. lemmy has taken quite a few design decisions from Reddit which is exactly the same way. Both platforms are public places where all content is shared. Anyone using them needs to be aware of that fact. Mastodon might be a better fit for you as it is more focused on individuals rather than public communities.
If you’re not running your own server privacy policies are not even worth the pixels they’re presented on.
Literally, you’re just taking a random person’s word for it (whoever the admin is). A website is a black box, you have no idea what’s going on on the back-end.
The only way to be in complete control of your user data is to run your own server and be literally the only user on it.
Even then, any public comments you make are, you know… public.
Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies. It asks much less of my instance admins if it’s understood that my information was never private to begin with.
All your data will pass over other hardware owned by other people. The only real online privacy is not connecting to the internet to begin with.
And now we’re entering into the realm of encryption, especially end-to-end. Generally speaking, just because you’re sending information that touches other people’s hardware, doesn’t mean it’s public and readable.
Even then, AMD, Intel and now Apple CPU chips are suspected to be backdored. NIST has been slow to adapt a standard post-quantun E2EE algorithm, with some rumours of self-sabotage mandated by NSA (like they have already done in the past). The Tor network is extremely vulnerable to traffic correlation by big parties.
Encryption theoretically gives you what you describe, but in reality you still need to put a lot of thrust in things like your own hardware.
I think that’s worth considering: an open-source volunteer project requires and leaks way more data than a private corporation it’s mimicking.
It couldn’t be that one has had loads of VC funding for *checks notes… 15 years. Whereas one has been barely funded for five years and has more people complaining than adding code.
Actually, it makes perfect sense that an open source project that doesn’t have a big organization behind it isn’t going to have the same capability anywhere near as quickly. Reddit also makes money from advertising. The money for Lemmy is from donations and an abysmally small set of grants.
Hell, Matrix, an actual open source communications protocol is 9 years old and they still haven’t gotten encrypted video group chats working properly and if I recall correctly still offload a lot of that to JitsiMeet. I was using Matrix/Riot.IM (now Element) in 2016 and it was garbage that barely worked, and updates constantly broke what previously worked, etc. It took time to become better and Matrix does have a whole ass organization backing it.
For comparison, Lemmy has been around for about five years and they’ve had far less financial backing and developers contributing to the project. Matrix has governments like France and Germany lining up for services for private communications, which means they’ve literally got people paying them for the service of helping manage their Matrix servers. Lemmy doesn’t have the same advantages. They don’t have a service or ads to sell (no ads is part of the appeal.).
For what its worth, Veilid exists, if you’re looking for a better framework to start with than ActivityPub.
I prefer the complete lack of privacy settings because it is open and honest about the reality of what Lemmy is able to provide.
Even if you’re running your own instance, you are necessarily submitting your data to another party. I don’t have to trust the platform as much when my data isn’t private. It’s much easier to engineer a system around that assumption.
If we suppose that anything I submit to Lemmy is submitted to the public, I can’t be misled. My data cannot be leaked because I’m presenting it to the world already. Lemmy is a young social project with many problems to solve, still trying to gain traction and hold on to users and with an uncertain future. In brief: bigger fish to fry.
Maybe privacy controls could be on the list, but I don’t think it addresses the main problems or applications of the platform and creates its own set of issues. Keep it simple and stupid.
Lemmy has many privacy problems that have nothing to do with public comments you make. For example, the “hide posts that you have already read” option requires that the server track what posts you have read. There is no public activity involved in reading a post. So the Lemmy server should not track that info. If that feature is to exist at all, it should be implemented purely on the client. The same can be said about subscriptions, and for that matter about voting (server should discard voting info after a brief interval for abuse detection). The Lemmy software in many ways naive about this stuff.
I don’t disagree on those points, but I think it’s the nature of Lemmy being decentralized that makes all those things necessary.
server should discard voting info after a brief interval for abuse detection
What if the server has not federated out the votes yet? Some of that stuff can get backed up in a queue. There’s definitely a possibility that votes could get “lost” on the way. Hell, that already happens, and that’s with a system that tracks them.
Servers have to keep a lot of this info to pass to other servers. If I upvote something on Lemmy.blahaj.zone, it doesn’t mean that upvote has been federated outward to hundreds of other servers yet. I would assume this is part of how Lemmy is able to keep things “organized” between all servers.
In other words, a lot of the privacy complaints come from technical limitations of how Lemmy works. Lemmy, by it’s decentralized nature, has to transfer tons of data back and forth between all Lemmy instances.
However, there are technologies that are trying to work around this kind of technical limitation. You might be interested in something like Veilid. I’m not sure about the details of putting together a Veilid-based social-network, but I’m willing to believe it’s possible.
I don’t see anything in your post that indicates any reason to track what posts a person has read. That should not be tracked at all. Reading posts should be completely anonymous.
I don’t see why voting necessarily has to track who casts the votes. But, because untracked voting can be abused so easily, I can understand deciding to retain the info for let’s say 24 hours. Hopefully that is also enough to handle those propagation issues.
Really, imho, server instances shouldn’t have a web interface at all, just an API. Web apps would make API calls to the server and reformat the response for use by the browser. The API call to read a post should not require any identifying info or require the user to be logged in. Read tracking and subscriptions should be handled by the client, and in the case of a public client (web app shared by many users), the private user info should be encrypted in case of a server breakin or seizure. The encryption key would be based on the user password and transformed to a browser cookie when the user logs in, so it is never stored by the web app. With most people using mobile clients these days, alternatively, the info can be kept completely on the client device and maintained by the mobile app.
Not supporting a game is not a reason to switch to linux, and the more games aren’t supported, the less people are gonna switch. The Linux zeal on this site is comical.
“Haha my OS cant play games that have millions of concurrent daily users each!”
OP was saying something along the lines of ‘if Valorant can’t run on Linux, it’s a sign your privacy is much less compromised.’ After all this community is specifically about privacy.
That’s a great argument for the extremely small percentage of gamers who give a damn about that, but just about all of them are already on linux, so if that’s the way forward for linux gaming, congrats it’s at full saturation. This site is wild. Downvotes for pointing out thay not running games thay millions play a day is bad for gaming on the OS. I may as well be talking to Republicans about Biden. You’re zealots.
Go on the legaue and valorant forums see how many of the millions you can convince that Linux security is more important than being able to play with their friends.
Lol bold opinion on this site when people are already responding that its good for Linux gaming that it won’t play games that has intrusive anticheat. I’ll admit sure it’s better for security, but to think that’s a good thing for gaming on Linux is hilarious.
No, it’s obviously better to have the choice (run the game or not). And losing a game that previously worked on Linux is obviously a bad thing, hence the joke about it being good.
Of course you could argue that taking a stance against this kind of intrusive anticheat is good in the long run. If Microsoft had a backbone they’d do the same.
But yeah losing games because of anticheat is obviously a bad thing lol. No need to take it so seriously.
The comment was about valorant, did that one ever work on Linux, if so I wasn’t aware that they figured it out. Didnt seem like a joke, and people are unironocally agreeing with it soooo
So, requiring to puncture the security and privacy of your PC for a game is ok, as long as millions of players are affected. Did I understand you correctly, here?
Nowhere did I say that, what I said is most gamers do not care. So what I’m implying is if you want Linux desktop OS to overtake the next highest competitor (which is ‘OS unknown’ btw) you’re going to need to do better. For at least the past 20 years gaming has been a social phenomena more than anything else, and not being able to play games that millions play daily isn’t a brag for linux gaming just because you’re more secure than they are. Unknown OS is ahead of linux on desktop share, not just gaming desktop, all desktop. Linux ranks just below a statistical anomaly and just above chrome os. If that’s fine with you than fine, but if you’re one of the people for whom gaming is a very social thing, then you’re probably never moving to linux at this rate, or at least hope things get better. But apparently I’m the only one unsatisfied with what gaming on linux looks like, and everyone else loves it as is. Welp, if that’s how it is and this is what linux gaming is supposed to be, then it’s defiantly not for me either.
You’re right, it’s been absolutely devastating not being able to play a 14-year old game that I have no interest in playing on my computer. I’ll go cry over my video game consoles.
It may sound silly, but for a lot of people being unable to play games like Valorant, Warzone or League of Legends it’s actually a feature and not a bug or a problem.
Ima tell you right now 90% probably more of the val community wouldnt play the game on linux or switch regardless of if it ran or not so it so it doesnt really matter
Correct me if I’m wrong but if it can’t run Valorant then it can’t run the game in general, so you’d be just as well off by not playing Riot games on a Windoze or Mac machine as well.
You can control who sees it by how and where you post it. If you don’t want people to see it, just don’t put it on the Internet at all. Even sites with fine-grained privacy controls can have flaws that result in information leaks.
The very nature of Lemmy and most social media, is that what you put out there is public. If you don’t want everyone in the world to read something you wrote, then social media may not be your kind of thing.
Because it seems that, to exist in society, is to give up some form of privacy by dint of existing in it.
You cannot stop yourself from being observed by other people, if they can see you. That’s just basic reality.
To be completely private, you would have to live in the woods and not interact with anyone or speak with anyone.
Is it defeatist to be realistic about the limitations of the idea of privacy?
As someone who has spent a lot of time seeking internet privacy, I’ve learned that more often than not I’m making myself more conspicuous. That doesn’t mean I’m going to give up on privacy, but it does mean that I’m going to consider its limitations.
EDIT: I’m reminded of an interview with Mark Hossler from Negativland. The interview is long gone from the internet (it was on an obscure website pre-youtube) but the center of it always stuck with me.
“If you really want full control of your art, don’t show it to anybody, keep it in your home.” His argument was Richard Dawkins’ argument for memes. The human mind functions by copying and mimicking. When someone else has viewed your artwork, they’ve already created an internal image of it in their memory. That memory is inconsistent with reality, but if they have a good memory, they can recreate it relatively easily (if they have similar artistic skills). You can’t really stop that kind of copying from happening, so the only way to fight it and keep “complete control” is to not share it at all.
Similarly, the only way to have complete control over your privacy is by not interacting with anyone at all.
Given the state Lemmy is in (barely functional with loads of papercuts) and the barebones developer funding it has (barely above minimum wage), these honestly feel like low priority “nice to have” features for a software that is meant for public forums.
I don’t care how little money they have and how few developers they have, they need to bring a feature-set that is on par with corporations with billions of dollars at their disposal and thousands of developers! Fuck that, they need to even do better than those companies on the privacy issue!
On Lemmy any comment you post gets federated out to other servers, so it’s available to anyone who sets up a server. So by design it is not possible to control who gets to see or archive your comments. I could set up a server to permanently archive every comment it sees, and if your server sends me your comment it goes into my archive. Probably people are already doing this for data mining. It’s not clear that you could bolt some kind of privacy control on to this architecture, which is fundamentally designed for sharing.
Although I agree that is how things work now, one could imagine a different approach:
For instance, I could maybe control who my content gets federated to. That is, if I decide I don't particularly want my content blasted to certain places that my instance would not call any blocked ones with my data.
If that causes some issues with ActivityPub, you can imagine encrypted blobs that could only be opened by others with a shared key.
We don't need to achieve perfection out of the gate, to me these questions are worth discussing so that we can build out more high quality tech for the fediverse, let's not try to just immediately shut down discussion.
How would you ensure other instances are not sharing your content?
To me this seems to be a question of ideology. I came here from Reddit because this is an open forum with transparent history.
Federetion by design ensures that accessibility (as far as I understand, correct me if I’m wrong). This design principle to me is the core. If that seems like an issue maybe this style of social media is not for you.
In this context, it’s an open public digital space. Noone is obligated share anything.
The part that is discussed as a privacy issue is a design element. It is by design post are visible to everyone, it is by design that comments are visible to everyone.
How is it a privacy issue when the user desides what to post for everyone to see?
If you are looking for a different design ideology then maybe you need a different social media platform.
So regarding an open, public digital space like Twitter, how do you feel about people having the ability to lock their accounts and instantly hide all their tweets from the public?
Mastodon doesn’t have that, but it could.
My reaction to adding something like that will always be “that would be rad” regardless of previous assumptions about how public an app should be, or truisms like “the Internet is forever”, because I believe strongly that trying to fix issues is better than letting them languish unchecked.
I’ve never been on Twitter. Besides Reddit I really disliked all other main platforms. So answering your question: I don’t care, it’s a different platform for different style of social media interactions.
the Internet is forever
My position has nothing to do with this sentiment. Internet forgets, and often.
I like federated nature of Lemmy, I like that there is no “private” accounts. This is a feature not a bug.
I’m not trying to argue against privacy, but what you are describing isn’t a privacy issue or an issue at all. It’s a design element. And it’s this design is why I like it here.
As someone here has said, at some point the responsibility has to fall on the user. You don’t need to share anything. As long as the nature of the platform is clear (and it’s a separate discussion) the is no issue to be fixed.
If to you that is seems as an issue, well then maybe you are at the wrong place. And if the platform changes in the direction I don’t agree, I will leave.
For example, privacy settings on Facebook are available to all registered users: they can block certain individuals from seeing their profile, they can choose their “friends”, and they can limit who has access to their pictures and videos.
We were talking about the definition of privacy, and I was giving an example to bolster my definition of it. We can switch to a different topic if you want, but first I want to cement this definition.
Riot Games Now Requires Kernel-Level Anti-Cheat Software
In other words, a Chinese rootkit. Wouldn’t want a Chinese backdoor in my kernel, but that’s just my personal opinion. If you want one, go ahead, install this garbage.
I don’t support this existing, but does the nsa collect and sell all your data to third parties and make a shitload of money doing so? Because everyone else definitely does. I don’t know how difficult it is now, but some number of years ago you could request a copy of all the data some of the social media sites have on you and it’s fucking scary especially with how much is deduced, presumably from piecing together info from your entire social network.
Nope, reading people’s history is the number one reason i liked Reddit and now lemmy. It’s just anonymous enough that you can keep your private life separate, and having a comment history stands in as an online barometer of who the other people your talking to are generally like
privacy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.