Maybe this was an Elon Musk requested feature

Despite the traction, Mohandas says the company doesn’t yet have any ambitions to seek out venture capital.

Despite the product not sucking, the founder says the company doesn’t have ambitions to make their product start sucking.

Sometimes I hate journalism

It’s unclear if they were already gathering this data but with no way to opt out.

Either way, it’s not great, but the lack of clarity is a little worrying

For some users, including myself, it was on by default.

Not sure if this means it’s a step forwards or a step backwards.

A data sucking capitalist corporation from an imperialist power, all of which you hate because you aren’t an orientalist hypocrite, I presume?

Right, but does that mean GPL-licensed apps are still getting removed left and right from the App Store, and/or that people are self-censoring?

I see VLC (back from the original contention) is still up, though MPL licensed on there (it appears to be GPL on their official website), and I don’t touch iOS devices nearly enough to recognize much else. It’s been fifteen years.

I found this helpful article about what the AGPL is, and how it can be really beneficial- with examples.

Can you provide a source about Apple not letting you distribute GPL licensed code? Or is that basically what this StackOverflow question mentions? I’m just trying to figure out whether Apple’s evil here is business as usual, or particularly pernicious.

I’d never looked into Cyd before, but it sounds brilliant - a platform to not just delete your tweets but also preserve them in case there’s anything worth preserving. I’ve wanted something similar for Reddit for a little while now.

For someone who claims to care about the truth, kind of funny you lied about leaving. Try to keep up with your promise and don’t lie again!

The walls of text you have been spamming seem intentionally designed to convince people you know what you’re talking about, so thank you for admitting you don’t.

Which narrative are you currently pushing: that it was a bug in a Mastodon fork, or that it was a bug in Mastodon?

Or is your opinion simply based on needing to blame anybody but Pixelfed for their fuckup

Okay, so you are disingenuous.

Instead of being even more of a hypocrite by telling others to quiet down, why don’t you delete your copypasta that add nothing to the conversation?

Eagle-eyed readers will notice you changed your narrative from blaming “a fork of Mastodon” to blaming Mastodon itself, while simultaneously praising Dansup for fixing “their” issue with his software.

You’re being nonsensical.

If it’s not his bug to fix, and you genuinely believe this (I don’t think you’re being authentic, but you can prove me wrong): you should be encouraging Dansup to revert his change, not praising him for making it.

This article is about the Mastodon equivalent of protected accounts, not private messages.

(Have people actually read this article?)

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.

You said you were done responding, so at least have the dignity of demonstrating a little bit of honesty where it is most apparent.

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.

It seems

Any “privacy” improvements from random instances are not part of the core code structure

The privacy improvements are from the ActivityPub protocol. The author cites them.

Edit: …and the spammer who keeps copy-pasting the same irrelevant spam from thread to thread is back

Don’t be a jackass and don’t spam.

The trouble with the thing you quoted twice in a row - unnecessarily padding out your post - is that saying “Mastodon may not be perfect” does not cancel out Pixelfed’s massive security issue.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Non-malicious servers aren’t supposed to do what Pixelfed did.

Search that specification for “private.” You’ll find precisely one reference to it…

It might be better to look for what the article mentions: “manuallyApprovesFollowers”, and it is explicit about what to do when that value is set to true. I don’t understand how you’re confused by it.

Mastodon, in general, is regarded as careless with safety.

Regardless, two wrongs don’t make a right, and I found the description of how to properly handle a security issue as discussed in the article to be appropriate. For example, collaborating with administrators of large instances.

The “security issue” is created on Mastodon’s side

Are we reading the same article? I realize this isn’t the first time you implied this, but I thought I must have been mistaken.

From the original post: “Importantly, your Mastodon or GoToSocial instance isn’t handing your private posts to any random server, just because it asks.”

Mastodon is behaving. Pixelfed was not. Pixelfed fixed the security issue because it was their issue…