On one hand, this could actually be great, as it would allow me to follow actual Instagram accounts without maintaining a presence on Instagram. Or imagine just giving anyone your Mastodon/whatever Fediverse platform. Meta-owned platforms are really so large that it is really impossible to quit them without losing access to lots of people.
On the other hand... ... ... ...
THIS IS INSANE! THE AMOUNT OF DATA THAT ZUCC COLLECTS AND CORRELATES WITH EACH OTHER IS SIMPLY ABYSMAL. IS THERE ANY PIECE OF DATA ABOUT US LEFT OUT THERE THAT THIS BEHEMOTH CANNOT TAKE FROM US WHETHER DUE TO TECHNICAL OR WHATEVER OTHER TYPE OF LIMITATION??? HOW DATA HUNGRY CAN YOU, AS A COMPANY, BE AND WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'LL GONNA DO WITH THOSE GIGANTIC AMOUNTS OF DATA??? JUST GIVE US A BREAK, ZUCC!!!
Most Fediverse data is public so its very easy to scrape. Facebook wouldnt even have to implement any federation in their own platforms if thats their only goal.
@nutomic wouldn't it help to turn your profile private? For example, on Friendica you can check the option below and you cannot access any information of that profile besides the bio, your official website and your contact info (Matrix or XMPP):
I imagine that by having people interacting with your content from P29, your content gets sent over to them, so, in turn, Meta can sell that info to advertisers or allow them to target you otherwise.
Or, more likely, they could use info they receive from the Fediverse to further track their users on the platform (say A from P29 likes my image of a giraffe on my profile. Now Meta will have that information available to advertisers, and they can advertise X with cheap plane tickets to Africa or something).
Edit: Now that I think about it, they could also still be doing some sort of EEE-thingie that they did with XMPP
I believe "unlisted" on Mastodon is somewhere in between - it's expected to be publicly visible, but not publicized, i.e. it doesn't show up in a server's local or federated timeline. I'm not sure if it shows up when viewing someone's profile when not logged in.
Not that this would slow down an AP server that wanted to store it, of course!
I think followers-only posts on Mastodon are closest. Make that your default posting mode and require approval for followers and it's effectively a private profile. (Again, barring malicious ActivityPub servers)
When you mark a message as followers only, your server only sends it to your followers, and only shows it to your followers who are logged in
But if one of your followers is on a malicious (or buggy) server, there's nothing stopping *that* server from doing something it's not supposed to with the data.
IIRC it was CloudFlare's implementation that recently had to fix a bug where followers-only posts were being shown publicly.
That still requires your server to send the message to the buggy or malicious server, so Meta or whoever couldn't just set up a random server and ask for the posts, they'd have to have a user following you first, or you'd have to mention someone on that server in your post.
@KelsonV I see. So this might actually be a good thing, as they are publicly allowing anyone to use such a server to their own benefit, haha :D @nutomic
Arthur Besse
in reply to Ada • • •like this
onlooker, tardigrada, Daryl76679, Muad'Dibber, ailiphilia and ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ like this.
Ada
in reply to Arthur Besse • • •like this
Sean Tilley, tardigrada, sexy_peach, Daryl76679, Muad'Dibber and altair222 like this.
Greg Clarke
in reply to Ada • • •like this
Daryl76679, Muad'Dibber, ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆, altair222, bobs_guns, lemmyreader and electric_nan like this.
_ed
in reply to Ada • • •like this
sexy_peach, Muad'Dibber and federico3 like this.
testman
in reply to Ada • • •like this
Muad'Dibber, dreiwert, Greg Clarke, onlooker, nour, ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆, federico3, knfrmity, ᗪᗩᗰᑎ, m532, kevincox, electric_nan, Adda and thisn like this.
ailiphilia
in reply to Ada • • •federico3 doesn't like this.
onlooker
in reply to Ada • • •like this
tardigrada, nour, Soviet Snake, ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆, altair222, bobs_guns, federico3, drop, Steve, knfrmity, Daryl76679, dreiwert, Dragon, m532, electric_nan and fruityloop like this.
singpolyma doesn't like this.
Cătă
in reply to Ada • • •On the other hand...
...
...
...
THIS IS INSANE! THE AMOUNT OF DATA THAT ZUCC COLLECTS AND CORRELATES WITH EACH OTHER IS SIMPLY ABYSMAL. IS THERE ANY PIECE OF DATA ABOUT US LEFT OUT THERE THAT THIS BEHEMOTH CANNOT TAKE FROM US WHETHER DUE TO TECHNICAL OR WHATEVER OTHER TYPE OF LIMITATION??? HOW DATA HUNGRY CAN YOU, AS A COMPANY, BE AND WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'LL GONNA DO WITH THOSE GIGANTIC AMOUNTS OF DATA??? JUST GIVE US A BREAK, ZUCC!!!
@Adalike this
altair222, Steve, lemmyreader, Daryl76679, electric_nan, thisn and editediting like this.
don't like this
federico3, ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ and singpolyma don't like this.
nutomic
in reply to Cătă • • •like this
Steve, Anders Rytter Hansen, ghosthand, Daryl76679 and Peter1986C like this.
altair222
in reply to nutomic • • •Steve likes this.
federico3 doesn't like this.
nutomic
in reply to altair222 • • •like this
dreiwert and Dessalines like this.
altair222
in reply to nutomic • • •Cătă
in reply to nutomic • • •@nutomic wouldn't it help to turn your profile private?
For example, on Friendica you can check the option below and you cannot access any information of that profile besides the bio, your official website and your contact info (Matrix or XMPP):
I imagine that by having people interacting with your content from P29, your content gets sent over to them, so, in turn, Meta can sell that info to advertisers or allow them to target you otherwise.
Or, more likely, they could use info they receive from the Fediverse to further track their users on the platform (say A from P29 likes my image of a giraffe on my profile. Now Meta will have that information available to advertisers, and they can advertise X with cheap plane tickets to Africa or something).
Edit: Now that I think about it, they could also still be doing some sort of EEE-thingie that they did with XMPP
Facebook Finally Ends XMPP Support For 3rd Party Chat - Slashdot
developers.slashdot.orgSteve likes this.
federico3 doesn't like this.
nutomic
in reply to Cătă • • •Cătă likes this.
Cătă
in reply to nutomic • • •KelsonV
in reply to Cătă • • •Not that this would slow down an AP server that wanted to store it, of course!
Cătă likes this.
KelsonV
in reply to Cătă • • •Cătă
in reply to KelsonV • • •@nutomic
Fediverse reshared this.
KelsonV
in reply to Cătă • • •When you mark a message as followers only, your server only sends it to your followers, and only shows it to your followers who are logged in
But if one of your followers is on a malicious (or buggy) server, there's nothing stopping *that* server from doing something it's not supposed to with the data.
IIRC it was CloudFlare's implementation that recently had to fix a bug where followers-only posts were being shown publicly.
Cătă likes this.
Cătă
in reply to KelsonV • • •@nutomic
KelsonV
in reply to KelsonV • • •Cătă likes this.
Cătă
in reply to KelsonV • • •@nutomic
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ and Dessalines don't like this.
nutomic
in reply to Cătă • • •Cătă likes this.
mkhoury
in reply to Ada • • •like this
federico3, knfrmity, bobs_guns, Daryl76679, electric_nan, Steve, [object Object] and Adda like this.
[object Object]
in reply to mkhoury • • •Adda likes this.
Anders Rytter Hansen
in reply to Ada • •like this
ailiphilia and Cătă like this.
Fediverse reshared this.
Anders Rytter Hansen
in reply to Anders Rytter Hansen • •like this
Cătă and singpolyma like this.
Fediverse reshared this.