@noondlyt@mastodon.social @fediversenews@venera.social I’m actually not referencing one particular corporate-backed instance. Threads wasn’t even top of mind.
@noondlyt@mastodon.social @fediversenews@venera.social I’m actually not referencing one particular corporate-backed instance. Threads wasn’t even top of mind.
noondlyt@mastodon.social 7 months ago
@atomicpoet @fediversenews I was talking about Bluesky and Threads.
atomicpoet@firefish.city 7 months ago
@noondlyt@mastodon.social @fediversenews@venera.social Okay, but I'm referencing everything that creates debate over opt-in/opt-out: bridges, bots, search engines, servers, federation, etc.
Every time there's a debate about what's allowable, someone says, "I didn't opt in".
However, if you're not running a server that blocks everything by default, except for whitelisted servers, you're not opting into anything. By default, when a server "sees" another server, they are federated.
noondlyt@mastodon.social 7 months ago
@atomicpoet @fediversenews I am not happy that the same protocol is used by every corporation I do business with online. This should not be the same experience. Opt in is consent. This place is not a corporation. When it starts operating like one, it will be time to leave. My question for you is this: Why do you think they chose opt out as default?
atomicpoet@firefish.city 7 months ago
@noondlyt@mastodon.social @fediversenews@venera.social Yes, opt-in is consent. What exactly have you consented to? When have you specifically ever consented to a malicious server receiving your content? When have you explicitly consented to people, many of them bad actors, following you and sending you messages?
Regarding why the Fediverse-at-large prefers opt-out by default, it's pretty apparent to me: software engineers and server admins prize visibility and discoverability over safety and consent.