Kinda infuriating that BlueSky forces people to login to see posts...
-
@BeAware They decided unlike Mastodon they were going to do everything on a wide-open broadcast model, and then it turned out their users really really did not want a wide-open broadcast model and wanted Mastodon-style data containment, and so they bodged in some data containment but because it was added thoughtlessly after the fact it doesn't work cleanly like the Mastodon equivalent does
-
Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋replied to Maxi 10x 💉 last edited by
@frumble @BeAware @mho It wasn't really something that Bluesky wanted to add, it's just that it was locked behind a login wall at first and some people got used to this, and when they said they would allow viewing posts without a login, some people protested - and eventually to satisfy them, they added this setting where you can hide your profile & posts from public viewing on bsky.app. But they're still all visible in the API and through other tools.
-
@mcc what data containment does Fedi have?
Everything is public here unless you're privately messaging someone or set your posts to "followers only"....there's not much privacy here...
-
BeAware :fediverse:replied to Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋 last edited by
-
ramblingsreplied to BeAware :fediverse: last edited by
@BeAware that’s up to the poster; users can choose whether their posts are globally visible or gated behind a login
-
BeAware :fediverse:replied to ramblings last edited by
@algebraicyclist yep, I know...still frustrating to be missing context for most of the BlueSky quote posts I see...
-
-
@mansr @mcc I don't need to look it up. I run my own instance. Authorized Fetch ensures blocks are enforced by authorizing a user's activity through the Mastodon API.
That does nothing to stop anyone from going to your profile page and reading your posts, nor does it stop anyone from subscribing to your RSS feed which you cannot turn off and won't know if someone subscribes to it...
-
-
-
@BeAware @mansr At the protocol level, what I'm referring to is that in general *servers do not receive statuses unless at least 1 user on that server is authorized to receive it*. If users are on megainstances like m.s or threads, this doesn't provide much containment. But when people use smaller instances, it does help. (And also the large instances are bigger legal targets so the admins might be less likely to violate privacy policies.) BSKY was originally designed as an open global broadcast
-
@BeAware @mansr I *was* thinking about restricted-distribution posts such as followers only posts or DMs.
I know authorized_fetch exists but not the details. It does seem to me that "but the admin can choose to make posts *additionally* visible via web" is somewhat orthogonal to what the base network does and doesn't allow for. Users who want web privacy technically *can* choose an authorized-fetch-only, no-web instance.
I do not know how DMs are sent in bluesky. They are a new-ish feature.
-
-
-
-
BeAware :fediverse:replied to BeAware :fediverse: last edited by
-
-
-
women 2: the womening :flaglesbian::neoamazonia:replied to mcc last edited by
-
mccreplied to women 2: the womening :flaglesbian::neoamazonia: last edited by
@dangerdyke @BeAware @mansr An important thing to me is that on masto you can choose to run your own server, and if you do you can create entirely new security primitives like this *without* causing serious compatibility issues with the rest of the network. I run my own bluesky server and there is very very little I can customize to invent new capabilities for myself or the network. I see this as being because the protocol is too centric on Bluesky Social PBC.