| >I wasn't objecting to your point so much as you calling their summary a fair point. They stopped reading the article before they got to the example of non-public information in it, so mischaracteried it, which doesn't seem fair to me. I'm confused by what you wrote. Are you claiming that people who post information in a public forum should be able to dictate who gets to see that information? I didn't read TFA, so I have no idea what it says. I specifically responded to what GP wrote, and only that. Full stop. As to the rest of your comment, I don't see how that's relevant to public postings in public forums. As in this very comment. It's on a publicly available website and is indexed by the major search engines. I have no expectation that anything I write here is "private," nor do I believe I should be able to dictate who is allowed to read this comment. Contrast that with my Matrix server. Access to what I post there is limited to those who are invited to the specific "room" I post in. And I limit access to the site to those I wish to share such information with. What's more, I don't allow web crawlers to access that information. Public posts are, well, public and can be viewed by anyone. Private posts are not. That some folks can't keep that straight astounds me. As for any protocol/implementation shortcomings of Mastodon and/or ActivityPub, that's a different discussion. And one that I'm not engaging in. As such, I think we're talking past each other. I hope I've clarified myself enough that you'll stop making assumptions that what I'm talking about is related to your (which may well be completely valid and deserving of discussion -- just not with me, at least not in this thread) concerns. Edit: Fixed prose and typo. |