Something you may not know about Mastodon’s privacy settings is that they are recommendations, not demands. This means that it is up to each individual server whether or not it chooses to enforce them. For example, you may mark your post with unlisted, which indicates that servers shouldn’t display the post on their global timelines, but servers which don’t implement the unlisted privacy setting still can (and do).
Servers don’t necessarily disregard Mastodon’s privacy settings for malicious reasons. Mastodon’s privacy settings aren’t a part of the original OStatus protocol, and servers which don’t run a recent version of the Mastodon software simply aren’t configured to recognize them. This means that unlisted, private, or even direct posts may end up in places you didn’t expect on one of these servers—like in the public timeline, or a user’s reblogs.
That’s the explanation. You’ve been persistently pretending to fail to understand it, but it’s honestly pretty straightforward and clear. And now you’re following me into new comments threads to try to restart the argument in new places. Great stuff.
Of course it’s a good thing if Pixelfed wants to start to honor these advisory privacy settings, and I can understand why Dansup gave a high priority to the fix starting to honor them. That doesn’t mean that it’s Pixelfed’s “fault” that this happened in the first place. That’s all I was saying.
Maybe you can convince a few people that two contradictory things are true at the same time by spamming enough text, but you’re just obfuscating the truth.
It’s pretty simple.
Mastodon servers should honor privacy settings, they do honor privacy settings, and Pixelfed got caught with its pants down not honoring them.
And then, instead of fixing the problem in a way that even Mastodon has managed to do, they kinda bungled it. And it’s okay for you to admit that.
Your comments are very misleading, and I hope nobody reads them before reading the linked article which pre-debunks several of your claims.
In addition: You can’t simultaneously say the bug was not Pixelfed’s, while praising Pixelfed for fixing it.
Lol
Here’s the relevant section of this quite good explanation of how Mastodon’s privacy settings operate:
https://marrus-sh.github.io/mastodon-info/everything-you-need-to-know-about-privacy-v1.3-020170427.html
That’s the explanation. You’ve been persistently pretending to fail to understand it, but it’s honestly pretty straightforward and clear. And now you’re following me into new comments threads to try to restart the argument in new places. Great stuff.
Of course it’s a good thing if Pixelfed wants to start to honor these advisory privacy settings, and I can understand why Dansup gave a high priority to the fix starting to honor them. That doesn’t mean that it’s Pixelfed’s “fault” that this happened in the first place. That’s all I was saying.
Maybe you can convince a few people that two contradictory things are true at the same time by spamming enough text, but you’re just obfuscating the truth.
It’s pretty simple.
Mastodon servers should honor privacy settings, they do honor privacy settings, and Pixelfed got caught with its pants down not honoring them.
And then, instead of fixing the problem in a way that even Mastodon has managed to do, they kinda bungled it. And it’s okay for you to admit that.