erincandescent on Nostr: I think theres a good argument that making a bridge opt-out means that - for policy ...
I think theres a good argument that making a bridge opt-out means that - for policy reasons - many instances will have to defederate it; while making it opt-in allows them to leave it federated and means that their users can choose to use it.
But more than anything that’s an argument for better controls in the software we use (some very simple things, like can you imagine instance blocks which a user could opt out of them?)
But public is public. The controls you want? They should be built into the protocol/implementations.
Anything else is security theatre, and it is very unwise to give people a sense of security that is enforced only by hopes and prayers.
But more than anything that’s an argument for better controls in the software we use (some very simple things, like can you imagine instance blocks which a user could opt out of them?)
But public is public. The controls you want? They should be built into the protocol/implementations.
Anything else is security theatre, and it is very unwise to give people a sense of security that is enforced only by hopes and prayers.
quoting note1lkm…tfygAlso, harassment-enforced consent is a poor substitute for actual security and privacy controls.
Even if you don’t care about how it impacts its targets, it doesn’t work on anyone operating fully in bad faith.
This is the only place I know where it’s acceptable to tell users they have protections that are not actually enforceable. If a company did it we would call it false sense of security.