So really, the headline, according to you should be “only not writing anything on the public web will be enough to protect your privacy”. You argument has nothing specifically to do with the Fediverse or Threads federating.
Yes, I agree about Facebook. But over exaggerating the threat to privacy that federation poses isn’t the way to do it, in my opinion. Instead there should be a clear, well-informed and accurate risk assessment
The suggestion in the article is that Facebook and Threads have some special way of gettimg information about you from the fediverse. From what I can tell that’s not true. Your exposure is the same here, as it would be posting anywhere on the public internet - on Reddit, for example.
For sure!! The data they can get from federation isn’t a ton more than from scraping sites.
But scraping sites is HARD and we’re better off NOT making it easier for them.
Facebook is also likely to put effort into rebuilding existing communities on their federated version of the sites encouraging users to go there. They’ll make it really attractive.
And then they get MORE data because they will be able to see and aggregate which communities you look at and browse. They can’t get that without federation.
And that entirely ignores the “embrace extend extinguish” angle that I assure you is coming.
Because they’re bound to their stockholders to always produce the most profit, and letting people browse “other” services doesn’t play well with that.
That’s just fear mongering based on extremely contrived examples. It also has nothing to do with federation, it is trivial for any actor, whatever their resources, to access all the information in the fediverse.
Don’t be a boomer. Leverage security in public. Have alts and personas. Stay focused instead of falling for corporate astroturfing that tries to decredibilize new initiatives.
That’s just factually incorrect.
Only the servers themselves know which articles I’m reading.
Upvotes and comments are public, but that’s not ALL data.
It’s cute that you consider it fear mongering , but you’re not actually making any argument outside of an attempt at a personal argument and calling me a boomer.
I’m sure it feels silly to value privacy, because we haven’t been watching what they’re doing. Then suddenly an authoritarian gets power and you’re being jailed because Facebook sold you out to the authorities. You’re going to call that fear mongering too, except that it’s happening today with abortions.
But you won’t be interested in that because your health/life isn’t the one that’s being put at risk.
No no let’s be clear about the threat model we are discussing here : the possibility for Meta to de-anonymize me in a way that might hurt me, although i don’t have accounts on Meta properties. That is a pipe dream. Even the example on the top of the article has nothing to do with federation it’s just about a Meta property communicating your data to another Meta property which, no shit, Sherlock.
There is no technical proof that our identities on the fediverse are in danger because of Threads. Litterally zero. There is barely any functioning threat model, and the authors of this one admit readily, in the abstract of the paper, that these models would apply to any bad actor. They just take Threads as a notorious example.
Now, is Lemmy particularly subject to paranoid thinking, or are some trolls shilling on Lemmy to decredibilize the solution, i don’t know. But this is all wild speculation.
You might not have any meta accounts but that’s not the norm.
Giving meta access to cross pollenate their data is a terrible idea, that’s the entire problem with meta and Google, they have too much information on us to the point they can identify us without the accounts. Their ad tracking in the background of other sites gives them information that you gave a third party.
The threat model is the same as Cambridge analytica, selling “manipulation” and everyone thinks they’re above it, they aren’t. You aren’t.
So yes, the threat models apply to any bad actor, you’re right, but it’s the larger and more coordinated ones that pose the bigger threats here.
A bad actor with access to only Lemmy has more limited data and options for threats.
That that ignores the fact that Facebook/meta is going to use Microsoft’s “EEE” model to push traffic to their own version. Google is doing it today with chrome.
The same way they do on Facebook and Instagram. By using the vast amount of data they have already collected.
So really, the headline, according to you should be “only not writing anything on the public web will be enough to protect your privacy”. You argument has nothing specifically to do with the Fediverse or Threads federating.
I think the point is that we should all agree to limit Facebook’s access to our data.
Federating helps them do shitty things and that seems bad.
Yes, I agree about Facebook. But over exaggerating the threat to privacy that federation poses isn’t the way to do it, in my opinion. Instead there should be a clear, well-informed and accurate risk assessment
Okay but his risk was still real.
Facebook will aggregate your online data and deanonymize things you didn’t want exposed.
Privacy matters and every inch is worth fighting for at this point because we’ve lost so much.
Sure, but that has nothing specifically to do about Federation with Threads.
Yes…. It does… threads is owned by Facebook.
The suggestion in the article is that Facebook and Threads have some special way of gettimg information about you from the fediverse. From what I can tell that’s not true. Your exposure is the same here, as it would be posting anywhere on the public internet - on Reddit, for example.
For sure!! The data they can get from federation isn’t a ton more than from scraping sites.
But scraping sites is HARD and we’re better off NOT making it easier for them.
Facebook is also likely to put effort into rebuilding existing communities on their federated version of the sites encouraging users to go there. They’ll make it really attractive.
And then they get MORE data because they will be able to see and aggregate which communities you look at and browse. They can’t get that without federation.
And that entirely ignores the “embrace extend extinguish” angle that I assure you is coming.
Because they’re bound to their stockholders to always produce the most profit, and letting people browse “other” services doesn’t play well with that.
That’s just fear mongering based on extremely contrived examples. It also has nothing to do with federation, it is trivial for any actor, whatever their resources, to access all the information in the fediverse.
Don’t be a boomer. Leverage security in public. Have alts and personas. Stay focused instead of falling for corporate astroturfing that tries to decredibilize new initiatives.
That’s just factually incorrect. Only the servers themselves know which articles I’m reading. Upvotes and comments are public, but that’s not ALL data.
It’s cute that you consider it fear mongering , but you’re not actually making any argument outside of an attempt at a personal argument and calling me a boomer.
I’m sure it feels silly to value privacy, because we haven’t been watching what they’re doing. Then suddenly an authoritarian gets power and you’re being jailed because Facebook sold you out to the authorities. You’re going to call that fear mongering too, except that it’s happening today with abortions.
But you won’t be interested in that because your health/life isn’t the one that’s being put at risk.
No no let’s be clear about the threat model we are discussing here : the possibility for Meta to de-anonymize me in a way that might hurt me, although i don’t have accounts on Meta properties. That is a pipe dream. Even the example on the top of the article has nothing to do with federation it’s just about a Meta property communicating your data to another Meta property which, no shit, Sherlock.
There is no technical proof that our identities on the fediverse are in danger because of Threads. Litterally zero. There is barely any functioning threat model, and the authors of this one admit readily, in the abstract of the paper, that these models would apply to any bad actor. They just take Threads as a notorious example.
Now, is Lemmy particularly subject to paranoid thinking, or are some trolls shilling on Lemmy to decredibilize the solution, i don’t know. But this is all wild speculation.
You might not have any meta accounts but that’s not the norm.
Giving meta access to cross pollenate their data is a terrible idea, that’s the entire problem with meta and Google, they have too much information on us to the point they can identify us without the accounts. Their ad tracking in the background of other sites gives them information that you gave a third party.
The threat model is the same as Cambridge analytica, selling “manipulation” and everyone thinks they’re above it, they aren’t. You aren’t.
So yes, the threat models apply to any bad actor, you’re right, but it’s the larger and more coordinated ones that pose the bigger threats here.
A bad actor with access to only Lemmy has more limited data and options for threats.
That that ignores the fact that Facebook/meta is going to use Microsoft’s “EEE” model to push traffic to their own version. Google is doing it today with chrome.