I was the Fediverse explaining to a friend today, who needs an alternative to Facebook.
And, the big bummer for her, and also for me, is that neither #Pixelfed nor #Mastodon have any option to fine-grain who can see a picture.
The concept of how #Facebook, or Google+ have been doing it, is something people would love to see.
The Fediverse propagates #privacy, but at this point it's failing.
I know in #hubzilla there is an option, but the biggest ones don't have it.
The question is: why?
Taasz/Woof
in reply to Jörgi (chaos.social) • • •Jörgi (chaos.social)
in reply to Taasz/Woof • • •@woof
I totally understand the problem about the federation.
Also: if one server/software ignores "the privacy setting", or implemented it wrongly, it could happens, that it's publicly on the "bad" server.
I really hope there will be a @w3c standard for this one time in the activity pub.
No idea, if the founders @dansup (Pixelfed) or @Gargron (Mastodon) ever thought about implementing something like this in there software.
I don't see the "public website" thing, you can still selfhost it.
Taasz/Woof
in reply to Jörgi (chaos.social) • • •Public meaning its on the internet unencrypted in this context.
I'd say for private sharing with only a select group of people, maybe a messenger app with good encryption like Delta Chat or Signal is the much safer option!
🌴 Seph 💭 👾
in reply to Jörgi (chaos.social) • •Jörgi (chaos.social)
in reply to 🌴 Seph 💭 👾 • • •@vextaur
And? I was complaining that you can't say, who is allowed to see a picture and who not.
(I know Pixelfed, I'm even having my own instance)
Jörgi (chaos.social)
in reply to Jörgi (chaos.social) • • •Can you do this with friendica? I guess so?
🌴 Seph 💭 👾
in reply to Jörgi (chaos.social) • •Jörgi (chaos.social) likes this.
🌴 Seph 💭 👾
in reply to Jörgi (chaos.social) • •