Replies

• 
  Sigg3 5 years ago

  @Lnxw37 Most people don't have any opportunity to reflect on these things, either due to education, technological knowledge or economical situation.
  
  And I believe the assumption of privacy is tacit, presupposed. Fundamental stuff (i.e. access to water) is not something that people reflect on either. By saying that it's not opt-in, I intend that privacy is a basic need for democratic citizens. People won't notice it until it's not there.
  
  IOW #Pjuu cannot not respect privacy. It's not opt-in.

  • 1
• 
  Lnxw37 5 years ago

  @sigg3 Maybe. But when people choose the site (Facebook) that is breaching privacy in every way imaginable, their actions are saying "privacy is not important to us". If half their users left due to privacy concerns, then they and other companies would curtail their worst anti-privacy practices.

  • 1
• 
  Sigg3 5 years ago

  @Lnxw37 People shouldn't be looking for privacy. Privacy is not opt-in, it is fundamental. People who are using communication services mostly assume it's private. The bad guys exploit this.
  
  But you bring up a good point: my VPN provider does not keep logs, for instance. To me that's a plus.
  
  @Mrveemort Criminals will be looking for anonymity. Anonymity and privacy are often misidentified.
  
  For sake of clarity: I don't expect #pjuu to hide my identity, only to keep #private content private.

  • 1
• 
  Lnxw37 5 years ago

  I think one should survey the landscape. Look at what Startpage / ixquick and DuckDuckGo are doing to make search more private. Look at what Pidder tried to do with privacy-focused social. And look at what various Fediverse software does to try to enhance privacy. Then decide which of those things might fit in here.
  
  Finally, think about the costs of hosting the site, and think about non-advertising and non-data-harvesting ways to fund it.

  • 2
• 
  Lnxw37 5 years ago

  I don't honestly think most people are looking for privacy. If you think about it, the largest social site on earth is the one with the least privacy. That said, if you're interested in making sure Pjuu is privacy focused (and in people seeing that), you have to start with "we refuse to collect the following kinds of data ..." and "we refuse to collect data that is not necessary to provide the service". (1/2)

  • 3
• 
  Mrveemort 5 years ago

  I like the idea of pro-privacy social media, but fediverse isn't perfect at all, there is a bunch of pedos, literal neo nazis, SJWs and ungrateful people there, i'm saying this as a former mastodon user, pjuu so far as it looks is already good enough, and it would be a suicide tactic joining them

  • 4
• 
  Joe 5 years ago

  @Evaz88x we allow you to completely remove your data, we don't track you, we don't ever try to work out who you are IRL, we also want you to be in control of your data, which is why federation doesn't make sense (may be wrong about that). @sigg3 I think you raise some good points, I guess the issue is it's hard to show privacy with centralization.

  • 2
• 
  Evaz88x 5 years ago

  What is it exactly that makes Pjuu different from other social networks in terms of privacy?

  • 1
• 
  Sigg3 5 years ago

  You may need to elucidate:
  
  a) federation in itself is not meant to provide privacy, it's meant to make centralization unfeasible (and often, centralized and commercial solutions facilitate attacks on privacy). Federation removes the incentive.
  
  b) What do you intend with "how private we are"?

  • 3