I’ve been grappling with a concern that I believe many of us share: the lack of privacy controls on Lemmy. As it stands, our profiles are public, and all our posts and comments are visible to anyone who cares to look. I don’t even care about privacy all that much, but this level of transparency feels to me akin to sharing my browser history with the world, a discomforting thought to say the least.
While the open nature of Lemmy can foster community and transparency, it also opens the door to potential misuse. Our post history can be scrutinized by creeps or stalkers, our opinions can be nitpicked based on past statements, and we can even become targets for mass downvoting. This lack of privacy control can deter users from actively participating in discussions and sharing their thoughts freely.
Even platforms like Twitter and Facebook, often criticized for their handling of user data, provide some level of access control. Users can choose who sees their timeline: friends/followers, the public or nobody. This flexibility allows users to control their online presence and decide who gets to see their content.
The current state of affairs on Lemmy forces us into a cycle of creating new accounts or deleting old posts to maintain some semblance of privacy. This is not only time-consuming but also detracts from the user experience. It’s high time we address this issue and discuss potential solutions.
One possible solution could be the introduction of profile privacy settings, similar to those found on other social media platforms. This would give users the flexibility to choose their level of privacy and control over their content without having to resort to manual deletion or account purging.
I believe that privacy is a fundamental right, and we should have the ability to control who sees our content. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter. How do you feel about the current privacy settings on Lemmy? What changes would you like to see? Let’s start a conversation and work towards making Lemmy a platform that respects and upholds our privacy.
There’s a grim tragedy in how many people in this comment section have either succumbed to defeat or actively seek to advocate against privacy.
The comments can mostly be boiled down to:
- My data is online already, and I give up
- Your data is online already, and you don’t deserve control over it
- I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear (and you should too)
You will find Fediverse types are far more cynical and antagonistic to privacy than people on other platforms.
I’ve not seen any of these arguments. Though it may be all downvoted to hell and back.
My main gripe with adding privacy features to Lemmy is that the whole point of Lemmy is that all data is already publicly available and for Lemmy to continue working the way it does it’ll need to remain that way. And because of that there’s nothing that can be done to stop bad actors setting up an instance and selling all the data they collect.
At least in the EU (and UK to a lesser extent) no major corporation would be able to get away with selling that data, so the spent man hours on allowing privacy settings would be wasted time.
It doesn’t necessarily need to remain that way. For example,we should have the option to make our profiles private. We should also be able to create pseudonyms for content we submit. The content will still be federated, but not necessarily linked to one user ID
But why? Is there a compromise taken on privacy in favour of visibility and mass adoption of whatever fediverse client they’re using? I don’t understand this, especially since I also find the strongest advocates for privacy right here.
A lot of Lemmy adopters joined with rose tinted glasses, and came with a lot of good ideas, like getting data out of the hands of big companies, making it easy to access it (as Reddit locked down APIs), etc. Which is all good, but a subset of them believe “not officially belonging to one company” is good enough. As for how your data is handled online, a subset of them believe nothing can be improved, and a subset believes it shouldn’t be improved because your data shouldn’t belong to you at all.
And Lemmy is made up of all sorts, so there’s overlap between Reddit refugees and diehard fans. That interaction is a lot more implicit here, but the friction is a lot more visible on sites like Mastodon where similar privacy discussions have been happening.
Technical question: How would posts federate if private?
The only privacy setting I can encourage on any social media site is don’t share private stuff about yourself and never link to your account from other accounts
That is part of the problem though. Proper privacy allows you to express what you want to, without self censorship. The issue is not: don’t speak about x, but rather: speak about it and feel comfortable that you can do it in a safe environment. I fully agree with the account linking though
I have a feeling that you might be misunderstanding what the actual purpose of lemmy is. lemmy has taken quite a few design decisions from Reddit which is exactly the same way. Both platforms are public places where all content is shared. Anyone using them needs to be aware of that fact. Mastodon might be a better fit for you as it is more focused on individuals rather than public communities.
Well, not exactly.
Reddit Lemmy Content is public Content is public API access is limited API access is limitless Vote data is inaccessible Vote data is accessible No email needed Email or something else often required One privacy policy Basically no privacy policy
If you don’t want to share information on a public forum, then don’t.
On Lemmy any comment you post gets federated out to other servers, so it’s available to anyone who sets up a server. So by design it is not possible to control who gets to see or archive your comments. I could set up a server to permanently archive every comment it sees, and if your server sends me your comment it goes into my archive. Probably people are already doing this for data mining. It’s not clear that you could bolt some kind of privacy control on to this architecture, which is fundamentally designed for sharing.
Although I agree that is how things work now, one could imagine a different approach:
For instance, I could maybe control who my content gets federated to. That is, if I decide I don’t particularly want my content blasted to certain places that my instance would not call any blocked ones with my data.
If that causes some issues with ActivityPub, you can imagine encrypted blobs that could only be opened by others with a shared key.
We don’t need to achieve perfection out of the gate, to me these questions are worth discussing so that we can build out more high quality tech for the fediverse, let’s not try to just immediately shut down discussion.
How would you ensure other instances are not sharing your content?
To me this seems to be a question of ideology. I came here from Reddit because this is an open forum with transparent history.
Federetion by design ensures that accessibility (as far as I understand, correct me if I’m wrong). This design principle to me is the core. If that seems like an issue maybe this style of social media is not for you.
Can you elaborate on what being “an open forum” means?
In this context, it’s an open public digital space. Noone is obligated share anything.
The part that is discussed as a privacy issue is a design element. It is by design post are visible to everyone, it is by design that comments are visible to everyone.
How is it a privacy issue when the user desides what to post for everyone to see?
If you are looking for a different design ideology then maybe you need a different social media platform.
So regarding an open, public digital space like Twitter, how do you feel about people having the ability to lock their accounts and instantly hide all their tweets from the public?
Mastodon doesn’t have that, but it could.
My reaction to adding something like that will always be “that would be rad” regardless of previous assumptions about how public an app should be, or truisms like “the Internet is forever”, because I believe strongly that trying to fix issues is better than letting them languish unchecked.
I’ve never been on Twitter. Besides Reddit I really disliked all other main platforms. So answering your question: I don’t care, it’s a different platform for different style of social media interactions.
the Internet is forever
My position has nothing to do with this sentiment. Internet forgets, and often.
I like federated nature of Lemmy, I like that there is no “private” accounts. This is a feature not a bug.
I’m not trying to argue against privacy, but what you are describing isn’t a privacy issue or an issue at all. It’s a design element. And it’s this design is why I like it here.
As someone here has said, at some point the responsibility has to fall on the user. You don’t need to share anything. As long as the nature of the platform is clear (and it’s a separate discussion) the is no issue to be fixed.
If to you that is seems as an issue, well then maybe you are at the wrong place. And if the platform changes in the direction I don’t agree, I will leave.
I like that there is no “private” accounts. This is a feature not a bug.
I’m not trying to argue against privacy…
I appreciate your honesty but this seems to conflict
When you have privacy settings, what you really have is a lie.
It starts out with good intentions, like those in this post, but eventually everyone forgets that the platform still sees your posts and does not give a shit about selling them.
I would rather acknowledge from the very beginning that this entire system is not private, so there is never such a misunderstanding.
Everyone should post and comment with caution, just like you use caution with what you say in public places.
Sup. And all this data would still be federating, it has to be. That just means that some data-collecting company could make a fake instance and get everything together. Or someone could just fork it back.
The way you use caution saying something in a public place that you don’t want everyone to hear is by keeping your voice down so that only certain people can hear it. Without privacy settings there is no equivalent to that.
They have protocols for this, setup and manage your own server
If you’re not running your own server privacy policies are not even worth the pixels they’re presented on.
Literally, you’re just taking a random person’s word for it (whoever the admin is). A website is a black box, you have no idea what’s going on on the back-end.
The only way to be in complete control of your user data is to run your own server and be literally the only user on it.
Even then, any public comments you make are, you know… public.
Even then, any public comments you make are, you know… public.
As they should be.
Public comments is how you can find patterns of sketchy user behaviour.
Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies. It asks much less of my instance admins if it’s understood that my information was never private to begin with.
Well there’s still the legal threat. You have to trust someone, unless you’re creating your own hardware and never connecting to the internet
True! All your data will pass over other hardware owned by other people.
The only real online privacy is not connecting to the internet to begin with.
The whole system is based on trust.
Which is why I think some of these privacy demands are straight silly.
All your data will pass over other hardware owned by other people. The only real online privacy is not connecting to the internet to begin with.
And now we’re entering into the realm of encryption, especially end-to-end. Generally speaking, just because you’re sending information that touches other people’s hardware, doesn’t mean it’s public and readable.
Even then, AMD, Intel and now Apple CPU chips are suspected to be backdored. NIST has been slow to adapt a standard post-quantun E2EE algorithm, with some rumours of self-sabotage mandated by NSA (like they have already done in the past). The Tor network is extremely vulnerable to traffic correlation by big parties.
Encryption theoretically gives you what you describe, but in reality you still need to put a lot of thrust in things like your own hardware.
I prefer the complete lack of privacy settings because it is open and honest about the reality of what Lemmy is able to provide.
Even if you’re running your own instance, you are necessarily submitting your data to another party. I don’t have to trust the platform as much when my data isn’t private. It’s much easier to engineer a system around that assumption.
If we suppose that anything I submit to Lemmy is submitted to the public, I can’t be misled. My data cannot be leaked because I’m presenting it to the world already. Lemmy is a young social project with many problems to solve, still trying to gain traction and hold on to users and with an uncertain future. In brief: bigger fish to fry.
Maybe privacy controls could be on the list, but I don’t think it addresses the main problems or applications of the platform and creates its own set of issues. Keep it simple and stupid.
To me, it’s an issue of personal responsibility.
Lemmy is, like a lot of Fediverse platforms, about as private as it can be. There’s no trackers, you’re not forced to use real names or any other identifying information, no adverts follow you from site to site, no browser fingerprinting and no instance owners are trying to sell your data.
Beyond that, what you choose to say on Lemmy is your responsibility and yours alone.
What irritates me many times when I enter Lemmy is that instead of my Nick at the top right, someone else’s Nickname appears for a moment, before changing it to mine. This is a sign of an open account sharing channel, which is quite serious and should be fixed quickly. Security at Lemmy is apparently non-existent.
Removed by mod
Plus Lemmy is really good about allowing you to stay anonymous as it doesn’t pull any data other than what you write out. Meanwhile reddit or facebook monitor what you look at and for how long.
Bruh what? If you’re repeatedly making new accounts because you don’t want people reading your post history you’re doing something wrong.
The admin of Blahaj is openly interested in exposing trans people’s alt accounts and outing them on their mains. And somehow it’s the biggest trans instance. We need a community and admin reaction in favour of defederating people who do that.
Wait what? Do you have a source for this?
I don’t see much proof. Did anyone corroborate?
In order to show you proof I would have to help Ada in her attempts at doxxing, but I asked a friend who saw the whole thing to confirm.
I understand this is hard to prove without doxxing. This situation is very concerning, and if true absolutely disgusting.
I was there and I was randomly claimed to be DroneRights’ alternative account without any sort of proof to back it up. I could have doxxed myself just to prove that I am not that user in any way whatsoever.
Yes, I saw Ada trying to out a trans person. It was a very odd experience to see from a supposedly safe space, and a definite disregard for their privacy.
While I think most of us forum users are, I get the impression that the biggest proponents of activity pub and the fediverse as a whole aren’t even seeing privacy as even relevant. It’s a lot of talk of businesses having their very own instances to interface with the public rather than needing to rely everything on the whims of Facebook, twitter, LinkedIn, etc. Nothing with regards to the implications for surveillance, identity theft, spam, privacy or security.
Right now, we’re relatively under the radar because the fediverse hasn’t really hit the mainstream yet. But I think it will, and once it does, everything we’ve ever posted will just get slurped up by data trawlers and the flood of spam will be inevitable. We’ll be juggling social media accounts just like we do with emails.
I don’t know if this is relevant, but I’d like to someday have my own kbin instance hosted on my own personal server exclusively for family. I imagine the instance being able to federate content from bigger instances, allowing members to follow people they like on microblogs or participate in federated forums from this privately maintained instance. But if anyone wanted a thread or magazine to be available to users from outside the instance, they would have to specifically opt-in to that option when creating it, and it would only apply to that one thread or magazine. Any other instance would just see our humble little family instance with only that one thing to federate. The rest of the instance would be an ecrypted enclave specifically for family accounts, and completely invisible to the fediverse.
