Federated services have always had privacy issues but I expected Lemmy would have the fewest, but it’s visibly worse for privacy than even Reddit.

  • Deleted comments remain on the server but hidden to non-admins, the username remains visible
  • Deleted account usernames remain visible too
  • Anything remains visible on federated servers!
  • When you delete your account, media does not get deleted on any server
  • ffmike
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    In my opinion it’s unreasonable to think anything can truly be deleted in a federated system. Even if the official codebase is updated to do complete deletion & overwrite, it’s impossible to prevent some bad actor from federating in a fork that just ignores deletion requests.

    Seems sensible to just not post anything that you don’t want to be available for the lifetime of the internet.

    • yourgodlucifer
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      I don’t expect my data to be fully deleted in a centralized system either. even if it was deleted from the central server someone might have made an archive of it

      and reddit is definitely guilty of this since they were bringing back peoples deleted comments and accounts

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    0
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It is reasonable that people should be able to delete their posts / comments. However I don’t see how is this related to “privacy”. How can something you post on a public forum be private?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Blockchains have the property of being append-only, so a blockchain is precisely what makes it impossible to delete transactions. That being said, in a distributed system, once the message leaves trusted servers, it is obviously also impossible to delete it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    01 year ago

    I understand the impulse but the way some people get so hung up on trying to make a way to permanently and universally delete posts made on public facing social media and framing it as a “privacy” issue feels kinda like saying something you regret on mic at a town hall and being mad that you can’t permanently delete the memory of it from the minds of everyone present, and claiming that they violated your privacy by remembering it

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      it’s an interesting idea, but it doesn’t vibe with the reality of the laws in the EU which has “right to be forgotten” rules

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        The “right to be forgotten” rules are, with all due respect to the EU regulators, pretty shortsighted.

        I think the initial “right to be forgotten” lawsuit that Google faced from that Spanish guy-- where he claimed bankruptcy years prior. People( potential lenders?) kept finding that information online through google searches. He sued to have Google remove those sites from the index. He won and the Spanish Judge told Google they had to remove those results from searches.

        But it didn’t change that the information was still on each site. Those sites, the ones that actually held the information didn’t get sued, just Google.

        It also opened the door for oppressive governments covering up human rights abuses or hide other information they dont want widely available.

        Google appealed and won: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208

        I also want to point out that this Spanish guy’s situation is very different from “posting publicly on social media”. He was getting written about by others and the courts eventually said “no, this can stand. This information should remain available”. So I imagine, public statements made by an individual certainly wouldn’t qualify to be forgotten.

        At the end of the day, to me, this is a technical decision not a privacy one.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    01 year ago

    So, I was born in the late 90’s - I don’t know if they still have “computer literacy” as a core course in schools these days, but they did when I was going through K-12 (or, well K-9… once you were in high school they assumed you knew the basics of how to use a computer, and had more advance courses).

    One of the very first things we learned about the internet is that once you put something on the internet, there is no way to take it back. At the time, uploading pictures to the “cloud” and such wasn’t really a thing so we learnt this by using email: Once you’ve sent an email to someone, you cannot “unsend” it. You can kindly ask the other party to delete the copy of the email without opening it, but you cannot guarantee that the email wasn’t saved on another computer, or saved somewhere else along the route between your computer and the receiver’s computer. Clicking the send button was taught to us as “etching your letter into stone”.

    Because of this, I’ve always (or at least, as far as I can remember) made sure that anything I put on the internet, or even “put into digital form” (such as even writing something in a file on your computer - you can recover deleted files from a hard drive unless you really put in the effort to actually erase it… there is a huge difference between erasing a file, and marking it as “deleted”) is something that I’m okay being tied with me forever. I’m sure if you looked hard enough, you could find me participating on message boards as a young teenager - and to that I just say “Oh well”. Is some of it probably very cringe-inducing and embarrassing? I have no doubt.

    (This is also why you should take extreme caution when talking about say, your friend, on the internet - if you post something about them on the internet, you’re condemning them to this same exact thing)

    Now funnily enough, as far as I understand the ActivityPub protocol, it is for all intents and purposes the exact same as email in this regard. Once you’ve sent something, there are no “take backs”. All you can do is kindly ask others to delete their copy, and that comes with zero guarantees. If I had a mastodon server, and someone deletes their toot - I could take down my server and my server would never receive that delete request. Or, just simply change the source code of the Mastodon instance on my server to straight up ignore deletion requests.

    Would it be nice for Lemmy to have a way to actually delete your content? Sure. But that’s not technically feasible, and personally (as controversial as it may seem) I would rather Lemmy not try to give you the false sense that everything was completely gone forever. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be able to delete your account off a Lemmy instance, but it shouldn’t come with an option that says “Check here to remove your data/media from all federated instances” because Lemmy/no one can promise that, and I really hate it when software (or really anyone/anything) attempts to make a promise in bad-faith knowing that they can’t possibly ever uphold it.

    Anyone who thinks Reddit is “better” than Lemmy in this regard probably doesn’t realize that Reddit is making a claim they can’t keep. The most obvious example of this is all of these subreddits that have gone dark? You can bring up most of their posts on the Wayback Machine or Google Cache. That would be the case regardless of whether they were set to private, or even if they were just straight up “deleted”.

    We really should not be setting the belief for people that there exists a way to completely nuke a piece of data off the internet, because you cannot make a guarantee of that being the case.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      I don’t really agree with this. The core behavior of Lemmy should be to make a reasonable effort to delete it, which as I’ve understood it doesn’t really.

      And you don’t have to give people a false belief - the button shouldn’t only say “Request removal of data from all Federated instances”, but also add that “But keep in mind that it’s not possible to enforce deletion from all instances in a Federated environment, and some instances may refuse to comply”.

      I think we should strive for privacy as much as possible, and by default the instances should comply. Sure, there’s nothing stopping anyone from not complying, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t at least attempt to do it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      Not a guarantee, but a reasonable effort would be good.

      Consider doxxing. It would be better if instances propagated delete requests to the fullest extent possible so that that information would be as hard as possible to find.

  • Retronautickz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The illusion of Privacy is Mastodon (or social media in general)

    There’s a reason why when you go to “private mentions” on Mastodon, this appears:

    Private mentions. Post on mastodon are not end-to-end encrypted.Do not share any sensitive information over Mastodon

    While yes, we should be able to delete our content if we want, but it’s a bit naive to think there could be true privacy in any decentralised social media platform.

    There’s a reason why one of the think people tell you when you come to the fediverse is not to share personal and sensible information.

    The only decentralised social media that has some level of privacy is Matrix, and that’s why it has it’s own protocol and only federates within/between its own servers.