Are you against your public posts being saved in the Wayback Machine? (boosts appreciated)

@DashEquals its public. Kinda already assumed that. If that post is forever tied to this username then thats kinda what I expect on here. There are no privacy settings and no inner circles beside the specific instance you are on.



Yah.. der. Public means.. OMFG!!! It means it's public? I didn't know that!

C'mon buoys and gulls, if I had a problem with that then I wouldn't have made it public... Now would I?


They were public posts then and they're public posts now. I don't get what the deal is

@spookcentral That's my perspective but a lot of people seem to disagree.

@DashEquals @spookcentral

I'm not thrilled with a lot of the stuff I've put out there, but yeah... that's life and everyone else is likely in the same boat. It's not like I'm being picked on exclusively.

@DashEquals @spookcentral

Now I remember how I stuck it out on some platforms long after I stopped liking them, on the principle that I wasn't *ashamed* of the stuff I posted regardless of the assholes who wanted me to be. At some point it hit me that nothing I said ever really got through, & it never would. So what was I obsessing about anyway? & then I hit delete and all that went "bye" unless some1 really *does* care enough to trawl Wayback... which many people can't do successfully anyway.

@DashEquals @spookcentral

I feel like if someone goes and digs up some horrible crap I went along with in my 30s because they're still mad now, that says as much about their problems as it does mine. I mean, at least be mature enough to ask in private: *do you still believe this stuff*? before you drag it out in front of God and everybody. :/

@DashEquals @spookcentral

I should've CWed there for *epic levels of wishful thinking*. :P

@spookcentral @DashEquals I walk outside in public sometimes but if I find out someone archived a video of every single time I was in public i'd be pretty mad too. even if they say that they wouldnt record me if I was hiding

@DashEquals @spookcentral how? being in public doesnt mean I consent to strangers recording what I do, even less so without my knowledge

@themorgangoats @spookcentral (IMO, it does, but I don't want to debate that) That's not relevant, there's a difference between being in public (a passive thing), and posting something publicly (an active thing).

@DashEquals you're making a distinction where there isnt one. people decide to walk out of their homes, thats active. and if I find someone following me around with a camera aimed at me I dont think anyone would blame me for for yelling at the person carrying the camera, no matter how many excuses they give me

@themorgangoats If you don't see the difference between being in public and posting something on social media, I don't think we'll have a productive conversation here.

@DashEquals and if you dont know what consent means then I dont think we will either

@themorgangoats And IMO, by posting something, you consent to other people seeing and saving it.

@DashEquals pal what you're doing is the digital equivalent of following people with a camera and being mad when they tell you to cut it out

@themorgangoats You could just post your stuff as "followers only" and we'd stop saving it.

@DashEquals you could hide behind a trashcan and i'd stop recordi- ow why did you punch my camera off my hand?

@themorgangoats So you're advocating for DoSing archive Archive Team? Or am I misunderstanding you.

@DashEquals you get very defensive when people object to having strangers record all they do online

@themorgangoats Yeah, because I think it's morally wrong to not be okay with your public posts being archived.

@DashEquals and I think its morally wrong to be mad just because im following strangers at the park with my camera, but they still get mad when I do that. weird how that works

@DashEquals @themorgangoats By saving it you consent to being tried for crimes against humanity by the Imperium of Man.
@DashEquals @themorgangoats Thou Shalt Not Compile a Database of Free Men. It violates the sacred covenent. Heretics will burn.

If you don't consent to your posts being public, they shouldn't be public?

That's like saying "I don't consent to you logging in to my computer, but here's my SSH key."

@DashEquals @jennie I dont consent to a strange creepy guy following me around. anyway, im gonna take a walk to the park

this is how you sound

That's called stalking. There's a difference between someone following you around and someone recording in a public place and publishing those recordings. With the exception of politicians and celebrities, Archive Team doesn't target individual users.

@DashEquals @jennie its bad if you do it to a single person, so now that you're doing it to everyone its okay?

@DashEquals @themorgangoats it's more like saying, "I don't consent to you filming me, but yes you can just buy cameras"

I understand it's technologically possible for you to scrape posts and archive them. Unlike you I also understand that there's more to right & wrong than whether a thing is technically possible

@DashEquals being public doesn't mean it will stay public and easily accessible for even.

I can go in the street and ask people [some question], I'm doing it publicly, maybe they will remember it later, but that doesn't mean I want it to be recorded and available X years after.
@jennie @themorgangoats

For instance let's imagine I made a mistake, that I only recognize later, and regrets, and never act this way again.
That content might be use against me later, in a nasty way (for instance).
(NB: let's exclude any illegal or offensive content for this example, to keep it simple)

Maybe the people I ask will remember (maybe). Maybe someone else was here and remember. That's not the same as a camera recording all that stuff, with public access to the video.

@jennie @themorgangoats

@DashEquals @jennie @themorgangoats you
must be the most insufferable asshole I've come across in the fediverse

what about recording anonymously, without any way to know it's you who has written ? would it be ok ?

@DashEquals @spookcentral

@themorgangoats @spookcentral @DashEquals I'd be pretty pissed too, but that is the risk one takes when one is outside one's home, or when one leave the window blinds open.

This has always been the case, ever since the beginning of time. The only difference now is the technology we have access to.

@themorgangoats @spookcentral @DashEquals there was literally nothing stopping someone conducting surveillance on you and posting your wearabouts on some public forum. Real time location surveillance became a thing when radio communication was invented.

@matt @themorgangoats @DashEquals

it doesnt matter to me but it matters to some people so im not gonna be militant about it

@themorgangoats @spookcentral @DashEquals This. People are still entitled to expectations of privacy even "in public," which is foundational to things like ethics standards for behavioral research on people. For example, you might expect to be seen but not recorded. Ergo, researchers can't record people in public without permission, although they can people-watch and take general notes.

It seems to me that archiving public posts is exactly the same thing as recording people in public.

@DashEquals yes. this is singlehandedly the most retarded thing to come across my timeline today
@DashEquals the concept of a group archiving everything i do is unnerving and a threat to privacy. same reason why i'm opposed to google's street view. yes, it's public, but it is not something that should be made readily accessible to anyone from a centralized archive
@DashEquals totally against without question. if you want to archive stuff, make it opt in instead of opt out. same shit as eunoma or what it is called

@uncletrunks You should use better ActivityPub software, then. Anyway, I'll make sure to add another vote to "yes" once the poll ends.

@DashEquals imo you should consider being less of a voyeuristic weirdo
so we both disagree on things, then

@DashEquals Mastodon is not ActivityPub, which doesn't define poll as a standard.
Mastodon implementing something doesn't mean any other ActivityPub-compatible software need to do it.

Same goes for any other-than-mastodon software that has something that mastodon doesn't have.

Technically, yes, but ActivityPub doesn't really say what types of objects exist in the standard. There's the de jure standard and then there's the de facto standard that's actually useful.

@DashEquals @Lapineige you're literally only mad because kaniini (rightfully) told you off.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..