Przejdź do głównej zawartości


@ericbuijs We have to be very careful about setting privacy expectations: there is no #privacy in the #ActivityPub protocol/#mastodon/the #fediverse.

mastodon.ar.al/web/@aral/10925…

in reply to Aral Balkan

I've come to think that it's actually a good thing if social media sites don't have end-to-end encryption. Otherwise, you're providing an organizing tool for bad actors.
in reply to mathew 🦜☕

Can you please unset your password and mail me your phone? I’d like to have a look through it to ensure you’re not a bad actor.
in reply to mathew 🦜☕

But we’re talking about end-to-end encryption and private messaging. Removing the ability for people to communicate privately wouldn’t do anything to stop bad actors, it would just make private communication illegal. And guess who are great at doing illegal things… that’s right, bad actors :)

What it would also do, of course, is allow corporations and governments to further skew the power dynamic in their favour and, eventually, to erode the very concept of personhood.

in reply to Aral Balkan

I have no problem with end-to-end encrypted messaging for 1-on-1 communication, or 1-to-small-group.

Where it becomes problematic is if you imagine K*w*farms or 8k*n, but decentralized enough to be unstoppable, and with everything encrypted so that nobody would know what was going on until it was far too late.

I think people building social networks need to put more effort into making sure they're not building or enabling a more effective K*w*farms.

in reply to mathew 🦜☕

SXQgaXMgbm90IGFib3V0IGVuY3J5cHRpb24gLS0gZXZlcnl0aGluZyBpcyBlbmNyeXB0ZWQgaGVy
ZS4gSXQgaXMgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGtleXMgYmVpbmcgYXZhaWxhYmxlIG9yIG5vdC4K