If you decide to make it public. Or if you’re on something that doesn’t leave you any choice like Lemmy.
If you’re on Hubzilla or (streams), and you’ve grokked it enough to use it accordingly, then you can actually post content in private to only selected users.
There are two common fallacies. One, the Fediverse is inherently private because it isn’t corporate. Two, the Fediverse is inherently public because everything on Mastodon or Lemmy or whatever is the only Fediverse project you’re familiar with is public.
If you’re on Hubzilla or (streams), and you’ve grokked it enough to use it accordingly, then you can actually post content in private to only selected users.
Okay, but then Meta won’t be able to see it even if you federate with Threads (unless you share the content with Threads users), so I still don’t see your point.
Both Hubzilla and (streams), in practice the only Fediverse server apps that have a “public stream” and users other than the dev, can do a lot to keep content private.
But tell that to the Mastodon users who only know Mastodon and the Lemmy users who only know Lemmy, both of whom “know” that nothing in the Fediverse is private because nothing on Lemmy and effectively nothing on Mastodon is private.
Does it even matter if they know? The private content is supposed to be invisible to them anyway. The fact that they don’t know it exists would make it more invisible.
Also, some platforms, like Mastodon, have actually adopted some privacy. For example, they added “followers only” posts that only their followers can see. If they are aware of Mastodon’s “followers only” posts, then they already understand the basic concept of limited distribution.
The content you post on the fediverse is already public. You’re not giving Meta any less information by defederating.
If you decide to make it public. Or if you’re on something that doesn’t leave you any choice like Lemmy.
If you’re on Hubzilla or (streams), and you’ve grokked it enough to use it accordingly, then you can actually post content in private to only selected users.
There are two common fallacies. One, the Fediverse is inherently private because it isn’t corporate. Two, the Fediverse is inherently public because everything on Mastodon or Lemmy or whatever is the only Fediverse project you’re familiar with is public.
Okay, but then Meta won’t be able to see it even if you federate with Threads (unless you share the content with Threads users), so I still don’t see your point.
My point is that not everything in the Fediverse is public. Unlike what Mastodon and Lemmy users keep claiming because that’s all they know.
@Jupiter Rowland The public stream, if turned on, would only show the public posts. Not the private ones.
Both Hubzilla and (streams), in practice the only Fediverse server apps that have a “public stream” and users other than the dev, can do a lot to keep content private.
But tell that to the Mastodon users who only know Mastodon and the Lemmy users who only know Lemmy, both of whom “know” that nothing in the Fediverse is private because nothing on Lemmy and effectively nothing on Mastodon is private.
Does it even matter if they know? The private content is supposed to be invisible to them anyway. The fact that they don’t know it exists would make it more invisible.
Also, some platforms, like Mastodon, have actually adopted some privacy. For example, they added “followers only” posts that only their followers can see. If they are aware of Mastodon’s “followers only” posts, then they already understand the basic concept of limited distribution.