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.
@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?
@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.
@atomicpoet@fediversenews I agree with you on your last point. I have not here yet. Meta and Bluesky are known entities. They are concerned with one thing - $. How these federations are handled should address the fact that many people now here found corporations making terrible decisions at the expense of the people that use their product. I understand that any and all can join the Fediverse, but corporations are not people and we should remain skeptical.
@Chris Trottier No one is stopping someone from having an opt-in server. In fact, if you truly want privacy, you might want to check out Streams, where users can use the opt-in method themselves. Only stuff you allow in will be let in, and you can even make your posts private and visible to only people you select. So opt-in servers are already available. It's just not widely known at the moment.
atomicpoet@firefish.city 2 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 2 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 2 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.
noondlyt@mastodon.social 2 months ago
@atomicpoet @fediversenews I agree with you on your last point. I have not here yet. Meta and Bluesky are known entities. They are concerned with one thing - $. How these federations are handled should address the fact that many people now here found corporations making terrible decisions at the expense of the people that use their product. I understand that any and all can join the Fediverse, but corporations are not people and we should remain skeptical.
scott@authorship.studio 2 months ago