@Hyolobrika @volkris @BeAware I am on a single user instance, I have blocked my instance from threads.net and since your posts I am considering going private-only for my posts. Thanks.

@erik even if you block your instance from threads.net, the way the protocol works your content can still make its way to them.

Again, I think it’s really important that users realize how little control they have over content on this platform. Simple blocking like that doesn’t solve the problem, and you remain vulnerable.

@Hyolobrika @BeAware

@erik

Just also be aware of the different publishing levels and their drawbacks. For Private-only: is Mastodon truly the best 1-on-1 chat service/platform? What about Matrix or Signal etc? Surely they are better at 1-on-1 chats? Also, it isn't overly "social" (from "Social Media") and your timeline will be completely empty, meaning the only people who will add you are people you already know from elsewhere already.

Even the publishing level "followers-only" has lots of issues, outside of being merely a suggestion for the receiving instance(s): for all your followers that does not also follow all your other followers, you will be as fun as it is sitting next to a person on a train chatting loudly on their phone but you can't hear the other end: no fun at all. Your followers will see lots of "yeah! Me too!" or "I agree!" from you without ever getting the context of what you are going on about. I would suggest a self-hosted forum or similar for functionality like this, but I guess everyone else will suggest Discord as that seems to be used for "everything" these days (but which is another privacy nightmare).

In Akkoma (the service I'm using) there is actually a "do not federate" publishing level, so if you manage to scramble your friends together on that same instance you could post away in a locked down environment that simply does not federate out, whilst still allowing your friends/mates on the same instance to follow whoever they like. Just a thought.

@Hyolobrika @volkris @BeAware

@m @erik @volkris @Hyolobrika mastodon also has a "whitelist" mode. In that case, you could leave the whitelist empty and you'd be severed from Fedi as well.

This thread might find FUTO Circles interesting.

@Hyolobrika yeah, there are a few other platforms that didn’t have these problems.

IMO, the key is focusing on users instead of instances. ActivityPub chose to put the control in the hand of instances instead of users, but other platforms are user-first.

That makes the difference.

@Hyolobrika @erik @volkris that's pretty neat and all, but would it be adopted enough to make a difference?🤷‍♂️ Fedi already has 15m accounts natively and just started to federate with one of the biggest platforms in the world, if they can get some momentum and have a legit route to actual privacy on Fedi, then that'll definitely be a sight to see.🤔

@BeAware @volkris I run my own instance, but no private posts yet.

@erik @volkris if you have authorized fetch on and have defederated threads from your instance, I think you're RELATIVELY safe... though there's still things like crawlers, which have been around since the 90s.

You can have a pretty good cushion in your mind from just defederating and authorized fetch, but if that's still not making you feel safe, then yes, private posts are your only surefire safeguard.👍

@BeAware right, if you form a splinter Fediverse made up of only instances that are 100% trustworthy, that have all implemented security policies to lock down ways their users might be using their services, then you can block this from happening.

But that seems pretty unrealistic to the way people are imagining Fediverse growing.

A single bad acting instance in the whitelisted network, or a single hacked instance, is all it takes to undermine that firewall.

@erik

@volkris @erik truth. There's lots of safeguards but it's definitely a personal thing if they're good enough for you or not.

I just try to be as transparent about the facts of the platform as much as I can because there's a lot of misconceptions.

I do enjoy this place and think it really deserves to grow as much as possible so everyone can experience what it's like to have a "safe space" for "you" because there's enough control to fine-tune your experience here, unlike most corporate options.

We want people to be here because the corporate options are worse in that regard specifically. Not because it's a bastion of privacy, but because you have the option to make it as open or closed as you see fit. You just have to know that the options are there and aren't default.

@BeAware exactly, and that’s what bothers me so much, a lack of transparency for users to make up their own minds.

There are far too many users on here posting content under the belief that it’s much more private and safeguarded than it actually is, that end up surprised to hear how little control they actually have.

I see it almost every day, and it really worries me.

@volkris truth.

We can only spread the facts and try not to be bias because we don't know the mindset of those we're trying to inform.

I am here on my own instance and I know what I can and can't control and how much control I have.

I do have lots of control, but I won't lie and say I KNOW exactly who has all my posts and profile info, but personally, I'm very public so that's not an issue for me.

Ever since I've gotten here, my goal has been to try to give people a reason to be here because the alternatives are shit in comparison, but with control overall, not necessarily with privacy.

Just keep telling people how it is and hopefully eventually, the majority will somewhat understand this wonderful platform we have and exactly why it is so much better than the alternatives.

@vetehinen yeah, after your reply I went back and skimimed the docs again, and I think you’re right.

It looks like BlueSky emphasizes giving users control over their content and yet admits that they don’t think they can really do anything to enforce this.