@privateger@plasmatrap.com cover

privateger

@privateger@plasmatrap.com

Heyo. Software developer. Coffee drinker. PlasmaTrap server maid. ​:maid:​
Send me pics of your coffee.

For Plasmatrap official stuff, contact @admin please.

he/him
Taken by my wonderful boyfriend @hummingbird :3

​:neocatspinny:​​:woemspinny:​​:spinny_fox:​​:neofox_spinny:​

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

privateger , to random
tchambers , to Fediverse News
@tchambers@indieweb.social avatar

Welcome to @blklivesmatter to the Fediverse via their turning on Fediverse sharing on Threads!

Recommend everyone follow them and help boost their social reach.

cc: @fediversereport @fediversenews

#blacklivesmatter #blackmastodon

privateger ,

@nopatience @Natanox @tchambers @fediversereport @fediversenews Threads is an instance hosting a white supremacist domestic terrorist.

Many people don't relax rules because of instance size, so they ended up blocked by a LOT of people.

It's a real fediverse account, just on a very bad instance.

privateger ,

@compuguy @Natanox @tchambers @fediversereport @fediversenews @nopatience They already got lovely people like LibsOfTiktok on there as well.
They banned her for a day, then unbanned her, so it's clear they are open to that type of person. ​:cat_flop:​

dansup , to random
@dansup@mastodon.social avatar

I had an interesting idea for PubKit, I do want to open source the code but I'd also like to get some funding/donations while keeping the service free.

The idea is to set a goal, say $15,000 of donations to reach before the source code is published, basically incentivizing the release by a set monetary goal.

Wdyt?

privateger ,

@dansup no

privateger ,

@dansup because I believe something like this should be open by default, as should anything related to AP (being an open ecosystem and all).

Gating source code release behind a set donation amount is also very weird.
Never seen that being done before, and it kinda just nips any interest by outside contributors in the bud.

atomicpoet , to Fediverse News
@atomicpoet@atomicpoet.org avatar

De-federating does NOT prevent from accessing your public feed.

This is demonstrably false. Almost all servers that de-federate Threads still broadcast the RSS feed of your posts. This is available to everyone, even servers that are de-federated from yours.

If you don't believe me, test this out for yourself. Append ".rss" to the end of your profile URL (exampleserver.com/@username.rss), and see what happens.

Hell, if I wanted to build a search engine for the Fediverse and not use ActivityPub, I could use RSS instead and I could index most of the Fediverse -- whether your opt into it or not.

Let's stop spreading the myth that de-federation by itself prevents Threads from accessing your public feed.

@fediversenews

privateger ,

@atomicpoet @fediversenews Yes, and you could scrape the server HTML posts as well.

That is NOT the point that people are making. Threads will not be displaying content scraped this way, which is the actual point. People do not want their stuff broadcast and open to interaction from an instance hosting a literal domestic terrorist (Chaya Raichik), which a defederation achieves wonderfully.

privateger ,

@atomicpoet And then I would block on user agent, or simply disable RSS functionality for unauthenticated users.

Your point being? Bend over and give up because they may be able to access my information in some obscure way? This frankly just reads like you telling people to give in because the big corp will take it anyway, which is just nonsense.

People that dont want their stuff on Threads shouldn't have their stuff on Threads. The fact that you seem to believe it's alright to be advocating for Threads to become part of fedi while also basically stomping on user choice is absolutely baffling to me.

privateger ,

@lucasgonze @atomicpoet Yes, and an instance following the AP standard would respect a defederation by default. That's all they have to do, and it likely is all they'll be doing.

Becoming a hostile actor is more work for basically zero reward for them.

BeAware , to random
@BeAware@social.beaware.live avatar

Apparently not many people believe me when I say that "normal" users using the "block this domain" option, is functionally just a mute....

There's gonna be LOTS of very mad people when they find out for themselves that meta/Threads can still see their posts....😬🤦‍♂️

To actually block Threads, you have to be on an instance that actually blocks them. As of right now, the biggest instance that blocks Threads is masto.to

So all this talk most of you are doing, means absolutely nothing because the majority of you are still federated....

privateger ,

@Jerry @BeAware No, unless you're on an instance that still doesn't use Authorized Fetch in 2024. It's made to protect against that.

privateger ,

@BeAware @Jerry Then they should. Keeping it disabled is being actively dumb, unless you have a very good reason to. It's default on most other fedi implementations by now.

privateger ,

@BeAware @linus @Jerry This is true for like 50% of ActivityPub at this point. Mastodon doesn't respect half the specs of it, this is the reason migrations suck as much as they do.

However, nothing about Authorized Fetch is special or Mastodon specific. The important part is that ActivityPub objects don't include context by default anymore with it, they only contain references to data instead. Instances have to request data from the source instead to resolve the data, while identifying themselves using their signature on every request. That's all it does. Blocked instances get denied by the source, obviously.

Proper implementations handle it gracefully, because all it really does is add one more step that gets handled automatically by your parser. Extremely badly-made ones don't.
Even Lemmy supports it nowadays, I can't think of any commonly used service that doesn't.

Authorized Fetch isn't fancy. It just does it's job. I don't think you can even see whether it's enabled as user, it's only relevant for instance to instance communication. It sucked in 2021, but a lot happened since that.

privateger ,

@BeAware @Jerry @linus .social doesn't because they can't risk any form of breakage.
It's a trade between making your blocks actually do something or maybe potentially breaking federation of a bad fedi implementation. I choose user safety over numbers.

Without it it's perfectly possible for abusers to reply to a post from your instance, federating those replies to everyone, with the only person not seeing abuse being you because your instance blocks their incoming federation. I think that's unacceptable.

privateger , to random
  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •