Recent searches
Search options
@ericbuijs We have to be very careful about setting privacy expectations: there is no #privacy in the #ActivityPub protocol/#mastodon/the #fediverse.
@aral @ericbuijs 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.
@mathew @ericbuijs 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.
@aral @ericbuijs Ah, but my phone isn't the same thing as a public social network.
Just as the rules for flying a plane full of passengers are different from the rules for riding a bike, so what's reasonable for a social network that can reach (or harm) millions might be quite different from what's reasonable for 1:1 messaging with friends.
@mathew @ericbuijs 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.
@aral @ericbuijs 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.