witchescauldron<p>White Lies About Security and Privacy in the Fediverse</p><p>We’re told small white lies about security and privacy to get us to boot up <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/Mastodon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Mastodon</span></a>. But the truth is, this <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/openweb" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>openweb</span></a> tech is about dancing elephants throwing paper planes as a security/privacy model.</p><p>Yes, this is simply not the right tool for the “common sense” privacy and control needs the <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/geekproblem" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>geekproblem</span></a> have. In reality, there’s already a wealth of mature, privacy-focused tech out there built specifically for that path.</p><p>Enclosing the “commons” is a dark chapter in history for native societies — and we risk repeating this mistake if we misunderstand the political roots of decentralized social media.</p><p>Let’s pause and check the unspoken/unthinking political aspect of this. Much of the desire to retrofit heavy privacy into the <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/Fediverse" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Fediverse</span></a> comes from <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/mainstreaming" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>mainstreaming</span></a> liberalism, which frames everything through fear and control. But the Fediverse wasn’t born from that path, it emerged from a trust-based, anarchistic culture.</p><p>At its core, social media is:</p><p> Social (one-to-many)<br> Media (sharing news and events)</p><p>It’s an inherently public activity.</p><p>On the other hand, encrypted chat (one-on-one or in small groups) is an inherently private activity.</p><p>The <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/dotcons" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>dotcons</span></a> messily mix these two spheres together, but only because their centralized architecture makes it possible (and profitable). Of course, this is a black lie, since these platforms don’t actually respect the privacy they promise. Their entire business model depends on violating it.</p><p>In the decentralized <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/openweb" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>openweb</span></a>, public and private spaces have generally been separate and tidy — and that’s a good thing.</p><p>But lately, some online discussions feel like an attempt to deliberately blur these lines, reproducing the <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/mainstreaming" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>mainstreaming</span></a> model under the guise of “common sense”, to the same failed path we’ve been trapped in for 20 years.</p><p>We don’t need to reproduce the mess.<br>We can have the best of both worlds:</p><p> Public, federated social media built around the <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/4opens" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>4opens</span></a><br> Private, encrypted communication for individuals and groups in P2P chat</p><p>Let’s keep our focus on the true nature of social media and build tools that respect both public and private spheres, without falling back into the traps of the <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/deathcult" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>deathcult</span></a>.</p>