There are concerns that your publicly posted information would scooped up by bots that scrap up public information on the web. Or more specifically, be used by Meta to build a profile on you, which it already does even if you don't federate with Threads.

People who are concerned about this usually choose not to federate with Threads, but they also would need to block bots and Meta specifically to fully be protected.

Others don't share their concerns as much, or are more selective about what they post publicly. Some platforms allow you to post privately, for example, and unless you are communicating with someone on Threads, Threads would never see it even if you were federated with Threads.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The content you post on the fediverse is already public. You’re not giving Meta any less information by defederating.

[–] JupiterRowland@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you decide to make it public. Or if you're on something that doesn't leave you any choice like Lemmy.

If you're on Hubzilla or (streams), and you've grokked it enough to use it accordingly, then you can actually post content in private to only selected users.

There are two common fallacies. One, the Fediverse is inherently private because it isn't corporate. Two, the Fediverse is inherently public because everything on Mastodon or Lemmy or whatever is the only Fediverse project you're familiar with is public.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you're on Hubzilla or (streams), and you've grokked it enough to use it accordingly, then you can actually post content in private to only selected users.

Okay, but then Meta won’t be able to see it even if you federate with Threads (unless you share the content with Threads users), so I still don’t see your point.

[–] JupiterRowland@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My point is that not everything in the Fediverse is public. Unlike what Mastodon and Lemmy users keep claiming because that's all they know.

[–] scott@authorship.studio 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@Jupiter Rowland The public stream, if turned on, would only show the public posts. Not the private ones.

[–] JupiterRowland@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Both Hubzilla and (streams), in practice the only Fediverse server apps that have a "public stream" and users other than the dev, can do a lot to keep content private.

But tell that to the Mastodon users who only know Mastodon and the Lemmy users who only know Lemmy, both of whom "know" that nothing in the Fediverse is private because nothing on Lemmy and effectively nothing on Mastodon is private.

[–] scott@hubzilla.monster 1 points 19 hours ago

Does it even matter if they know? The private content is supposed to be invisible to them anyway. The fact that they don't know it exists would make it more invisible.

Also, some platforms, like Mastodon, have actually adopted some privacy. For example, they added "followers only" posts that only their followers can see. If they are aware of Mastodon's "followers only" posts, then they already understand the basic concept of limited distribution.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago

Also, having the biggest instance\service is a power because whatever you do you need to make sure it is compatible, so you end up servicing them first and foremost, and they can pull some strings from their side to change things for everyone.

[–] ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago

These are really good points you bring up and things I haven’t considered before. Thanks for the info!

load more comments (11 replies)