If you’re a developer working on a fediverse app or service and want to get it right – or just don’t want to be the center of the next firestorm – here are a few suggestions.
If you’re a developer working on a fediverse app or service and want to get it right – or just don’t want to be the center of the next firestorm – here are a few suggestions.
ActivityPub is a means of sharing information in a way that the information can easily be collected and reshared. By using it, you should expect that people will collect and reshare information you send via the ActivityPub protocol.
The article addresses this directly in the section on things to not say, though:
That addressing is insufficient because it begs the question of consent being withheld. But the consent is implicitly given by the sending of information via the protocol, otherwise a service like Mastodon can’t exist. The question of asking for consent after it is given is the part that I’m conflicted about.
Read the article, I didn’t write it.
“Implicit consent” is another one they call out directly.
I did. I’m sharing my thoughts about it. Some of those thoughts are that it seems to make assumptions that don’t hold.
I don’t inherently agree with the article’s ask, but you’ve literally only proven its point by stating, verbatim, one of their “please stop making us retread these tired arguments over and over” points.
OP links to a Mastodon thread from a user who breaks down the technical limitations of ActivityPub and proposes how the situation can be improved. Maybe read that.
Also, if you think that these are reasonable suggestions, then perhaps ignoring them directly isn’t the best way to engage with this article?
I’m not here to score points. I’m expressing my thoughts and reservations about the article. I’m not even taking much of a position on what developers should do. It’s more of an exploration of the landscape.
Unfortunately, skipping past a legitimate point doesn’t address the point which remains unresolved. It’s a nice rhetorical trick though. I’d rather discuss the point. (Even though others have had discussions, that doesn’t help me understand and learn.) There’s no urgency for me to reach a conclusion, so a bit of rehashing of “tired” perspectives isn’t offensive to me.
Reasonable doesn’t always mean appropriate or best for the situation. It doesn’t always lead to good or better outcomes. Shutting down and dismissing legitimate concerns is not a good way to build a consensus and and will often lead to adverse outcomes. It is ironic that this person’s approach is making the same mistakes they are trying to warn against.
There’s a clear conflict that literally can’t be ignored. It must be considered by all participants, else those participants will be unexpectedly unsatisfied with the outcomes.
I don’t think you added anything new to the argument and their linked source addressed it from a technical and ethical perspective.
Personally, I don’t think that it’s reasonable when someone asks you to not do something for you to do that thing directly to them.
You’ve done that here. Whether or not you think you’re bringing up good points, it’s still pretty rude.
Anyway, you’re right that this isn’t about points. I started off trying to give you benefit of the doubt that you were respectfully responding to the article and just missed what they had said, but then you doubled down and triple downed.
I understand the need to try to voice concerns, and so I understand why you’re continuing to push.