Aside from the opt out will potentially encourage bullying, I don’t really get their argument there tbh. By the logic they are using, federation as a whole would be a violation of their terms. Usage of the ActivityPub in it’s entirety would do the same thing they are complaining about. If you don’t want your data being cycled to god knows who, I would not recommend any ActivityPub platform and if you decide to anyway, disabling federation, and using authenticated endpoints. They are likely better off in a closed environment but even those generally are public access.
It reminds me of the people who used to have content licenses appended to their comments, I’m not convinced that having it was even enforceable due to federation.
Honestly someone should code this up using public data, just to show that just because you’re on the fediverse doesn’t mean you’re private or secure.
I’m sure this could only end well…
https://github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/issues/869
https://github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/issues/841
https://github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/issues/835
I have given up reading but would pay handsomely* for a tldr
*with an upvote
Aside from the opt out will potentially encourage bullying, I don’t really get their argument there tbh. By the logic they are using, federation as a whole would be a violation of their terms. Usage of the ActivityPub in it’s entirety would do the same thing they are complaining about. If you don’t want your data being cycled to god knows who, I would not recommend any ActivityPub platform and if you decide to anyway, disabling federation, and using authenticated endpoints. They are likely better off in a closed environment but even those generally are public access.
It reminds me of the people who used to have content licenses appended to their comments, I’m not convinced that having it was even enforceable due to federation.
There are numerous tools that do exactly this and have existed for years.
Didn’t this exist for Lemmy already?