data availability does not mean consent is granted to third parties to process the published data in any way they wish.

this especially includes longterm archival of people's personal lives.

if archive team archived the entirety of google plus, it would be a scandal.

> if archive team archived the entirety of google plus, it would be a scandal.

Uh, we kinda did.

@DashEquals yeah, but nobody knows that you did. if people did know, it would be a scandal. stop archiving people's private lives.

@kaniini I really don't think that many people cared. We provided an easy way to opt-out.

@kaniini Not directly, but what exactly should we have done? Pinged every user on and asked them to opt out? All we did was download public data and put it in the Wayback Machine.


you shouldn't have done it to begin with you fucking dumb fuck tech bro.

let them export their own data and publish it somewhere else if they want it to remain existing.

@kaniini So are you against projects like the Wayback Machine altogether?


i think that the wayback machine can be very useful for research. that does not mean that i think wayback machine should be indexing the fediverse.

thankfully, Pleroma presently defeats the wayback machine by keeping everything locked away behind JavaScript.

your lack of understanding of basic data processing consent has certainly motivated me to keep it that way. lain was absolutely right that we should not be shipping a Static FE.
@kaniini @DashEquals This is beautiful. You do realize that if you care enough about it that you can request a url be excluded from wayback quite easily. I can see where you are coming from I really do but did you never learn once it is on the net it is there forever. That has been taught for as long as the internet has been public accessible. ArchiveTeam may have gone about it the wrong way sometimes but I would rather the preservation be done the wrong way than not at all. You can argue semantics all day but the preservation of knowledge is important. Even if it is stupid false knowledge.
@Flashfire42 @DashEquals

preservation of knowledge is important, but preservation of people posting about whether or not they are gay or trans is not knowledge worthy of preservation.

you are absolutely right that we need to do better with robots.txt to harden against such scraping. part of this is absolutely our fault as fediverse developers as a whole.

these tools aren't used for spreading academic knowledge, but for spreading personal details in the user's day to day life. archive team should be leaving fediverse alone.

@kaniini @Flashfire42
> preservation of people posting about whether or not they are gay or trans is not knowledge worthy of preservation

That's your opinion, based off of what we currently know. In the 1900's, we thought that "preservation of films isn't knowledge worthy of preservation". Now, people would love to see those old films, but they can't, because no one thought they were important.

We're trying to avoid that. Who knows what people in the future might want to see from our time?

@DashEquals @Flashfire42

ah, so we should violate the intimacy of someone's personal space, and archive all their data without their consent, for the benefit of anthropologists 100 years from now.

how about no.

@kaniini @Flashfire42 We're not archiving followers only posts, and we never intend to. If someone posts something publicly, it's not "their personal space", it's public.

@kaniini @DashEquals Tell that to all of the letters published that famous people wrote hundreds of years ago.
@DashEquals @Flashfire42 @kaniini
That's the digital equivalent to "I took creepshots of you in public and show them to everyone who asks, but I'll delete them if you ask"
Everyone could have seen you sitting there, it's a public space after all, but are you really OK with them archiving and showing those pictures to everyone?

@glitch @Flashfire42 @kaniini I disagree. It's more the equivalent of "you sent me a suggestive Snapchat and I screenshotted it".

@DashEquals @kaniini @Flashfire42 if someone would save your suggestive photos and you aren't OK with that, you wouldn't continue to send them pictures, would you?
But what's the option for your public posts? Many archival bots ignore the robots.txt and to opt-out every account at every archive would be very time consuming. The easiest option would be to stop posting but that can't be the goal, to take away a platform for expressing oneself from someone just because they want their data to be ephemeral

@glitch @Flashfire42 @kaniini Post them to "followers only"? Also, there aren't (currently) "multiple archives" to opt-out of.

@DashEquals @Flashfire42 @glitch

there are already archives to opt out of.

one of the mastodon mobile apps sends a copy of every post it sees to a third-party service.

it is possible to share something with the public at large without consenting to it being archived forever. really! it is! it's the law, in fact.

That's pretty sketchy. That seems to be more of a "datamining" thing than an "archivist" thing, though (since they're not sharing the WARC's of that data).
@clarjon1 @Flashfire42 @kaniini

@glitch @DashEquals @kaniini I mean honestly I am apathetic on that issue but I can see why others would not be
@kaniini @DashEquals Then they shouldnt have posted it. Though if we were to have a middle ground then it should be the data grabbed and then darked. Inaccessible for majority of users until such time has deemed that it is outside of copyright?

@Flashfire42 @DashEquals

everytime anyone who says “LOL WHATEVER YOU POST ON THE INTERNET IS THERE FOREVER” i immediately tune them the fuck out because they are absolutely part of the problem

so just fuck off of this conversation, honestly. if that’s the core of your argument, you’re just a bootlicker for Big Data.

@kaniini @DashEquals I didnt say its a good thing that this occurs I was saying its the sad reality of our situation.
@Flashfire42 @DashEquals it occurs because people don't even bother to care about data processing consent. and they are enabled in their own enterprises by this apathy.

you are harming people by justifying the archival of fediverse participant's data without their explicit consent.

personally i am 100% convinced to never ever ship Static FE in Pleroma because of this. Static FE is as good as cancelled.

@kaniini @Flashfire42 And you complained about Gargron making unilateral decisions to exclude things from Mastodon that harmed accessibility because he disagreed with what they could possibly be used for?

@DashEquals @Flashfire42

nothing stops somebody from forking Static FE and continuing it, manually installing the Static FE module into their own instance.
@DashEquals @Flashfire42 indeed, nothing stops people from switching. that's why i tell people to switch now.

@kaniini @Flashfire42 So you're perfectly fine with what Gargron did and didn't complain at all?

@DashEquals @Flashfire42 i'm not fine with most of what Gargron does, but i did tell people on that issue to cool their jets and use glitch instead.

@kaniini @Flashfire42 OK, so if you're not fine with that, then why are you making the same type of decision?

@DashEquals @Flashfire42

it's not the same type of decision. Pleroma's core philosophy is security.

your work with demonstrated that Static FE will be abused to harm Pleroma users, and arguably that your motives are not really about 'accessibility', but instead scraping.

@kaniini @Flashfire42 We did say that from the beginning when we requested it, actually:

"harm", in this case, is subjective.

@DashEquals @Flashfire42

you are definitely exposing users to harm by archiving their personal posts without their explicit consent. in many places, you could be sued for doing this.

i guarantee you that at least one person will be blackmailed over what shows up in the dump.

@kaniini @Flashfire42 How much do you wanna bet? (we really need a Fediverse !RemindMe bot)

@kaniini @DashEquals I mean if we can get their explicit permission that would be absolutely fantastic but by the time we get in contact with everyone all that data will be gone whether somebody wanted it saved or not. We are solving problems that need a fine scalpel with a machete because we dont have any other alternatives available to us at this time

@Flashfire42 @DashEquals

here’s an idea: if they didn’t say “yes, archive my data” when you announced your intention to do so, then they don’t want it archived.

“what about the guy who hasn’t touched his account in 5 years?”

that guy especially doesn’t want it archived.

@DashEquals @Flashfire42 @kaniini If people 100 years in the future enjoy the several thousand "I'm gay" posts that fly by on the timeline daily, they're really wasting their time lol

@kaikatsu @Flashfire42 @kaniini True, but those aren't the main posts intended to be archived. More important are pictures, discussions, etc. It's easier to just grab everything, though (and a random "I'm gay" post isn't harmful to anyone).

@DashEquals @kaniini @kaikatsu I mean it can be very very harmful but that leads into a whole other issue

@Flashfire42 @kaikatsu @kaniini True, but that post in an archive isn't very harmful. Them making that post at all might be (but then they have bigger problems).

@kaikatsu @DashEquals @kaniini I mean it would be interesting for people to read about to learn about human behaviour 100 years ago or whenever they are looking at it. Though to be fair they would take a few looks and then close the books or whatever in horror with some of the crap people post.

@DashEquals @Flashfire42 @kaniini
This is exactly a treasure trove to future anthropologists. Which in no way justifies any harm or violation of consent.

I would dearly like to see this discussion writ large, across multiple platforms and cultures, because it's not simple.

Oh wait, that already happened at least in Europe. It's why we have the GDPR and right to be forgotten. Now every netizen needs to be empowered to use it, and educated in the tradeoffs of doing so.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..