RE: https://cosocial.ca/@evan/117119678988918978

Hi hi hello, educator of archivists here. I have this discussion when I teach digital curation and collections, because archives-style consent processes break down at social-media scale.

One thing I do try to impress upon students is NO MEANS NO unless there's an overriding public stake (e.g. for a politician).

Then I tell them THE FEDI SAID NO, do what's right and leave people the hell alone.

Because no still means no.

Every once in a while somebody -- unfortunately often a librarian or archivist -- pops up with "let's archive the Fedi!" and we all have to go smack them down again.

Leave. People. The. Hell. Alone. It's legit to think of social media as ephemeral (and the Fedi has affordances for that, such as timed message disappearance).

So yeah. Leave. People. The. Hell. Alone. Historians' convenience does not override my privacy and ephemerality wishes.

Or, to put it perhaps a little more zeitgeistily:

DO NOT BRING YOUR PERVERT GLASSES TO MY BLOCK PARTY.

@dsalo Good lord, he really is an insufferable man who doesn't accept that the users of "his" creation won't bend to his wishes. I used to only have him muted, but he gets a full block now.

@futzle @dsalo The only reason I don't is that I like to keep tabs on what his latest shit is, and who is boosting him so I can call them out on it.

He is truly a little piece of shit.

@dsalo I think the root of this problem is that people who want to be forgotten historically chose the absolute worst platform for their communication: a public[1] microblogging platform.

I strongly believe a searchable, archived Fedi would be immensely useful and necessary so please don't suggest that everyone in the Fedi are on the same page about this. I'm not against having controls (either opt-in or opt-out) to control indexing on a per-account basis, but unfortunately we can't even seem to have a proper discussion about the possible solutions.

[1] The consent so many people seem to miss is in the act of pressing the button to *publish content on the open Internet*.

@buherator It's not, actually. There's a substantial research literature on this. I suggest starting with Casey Fiesler.

Then you can fuck off into the hole you crawled out of, mansplainer.

@dsalo See, "we can't even seem to have a proper discussion about the possible solutions". Bye!

@dsalo except the Fedi didn't say no.

https://cosocial.ca/@evan/117113173208161488

@dsalo this is a 60-40 split.

@buherator The fact that you wrote this:
>The consent so many people seem to miss is in the act of pressing the button to *publish content on the open Internet*.
Means that you didn't really mean this:
>I'm not against having controls (either opt-in or opt-out)
Your first statement implies you think people have already opted in by posting. You can't have it both ways.
And this is why @dsalo isn't going to waste her time having a discussion with you.

@dsalo I have a discussion of the topic here.

EDIT: this is the link to the full thread, where I talk about the pluses and minuses of archiving. OP quote-posted one post in this thread.

https://cosocial.ca/@evan/117119648900494272

@jik Thanks for the reasonable reaction! I'm thinking about said controls as a band-aid for an already messed up situation (see the first part of my post). E.g. an opt-in system could make all historic posts followers-only by default. This wouldn't affect existing archives ofc. (which do exist whether we like it or not) and may be too much headache for users. We'd need arguments and compromises.

Calling each other names only conserves the current situation where one chunk of users is missing key features while an other is living in a false sense of privacy.

@buherator I'm not going to call you names. I am going to say you really don't get it and I have no more desire than @dsalo to waste my time discussing it with you further.
There is no "solution" to your "problem" that does not violate people's right to privacy.
This is all I have to add: https://federate.social/@jik/117122411977639321

@jik "I'm not going to call you names" - I didn't mean you either, sorry for the confusion!

The funny thing is that I don't even think our stances are too far apart, but this topic somehow still triggers flames after all this time.

I expressed my opinion, you expressed yours. I'm OK with not taking this further.

@buherator

Consent doesn't work like that. Walking down the street doesn't mean I've consented to someone following me around filming me, or to having my photo on the front of the Daily Mail.

Some people have been around this block already at a nuanced level. If you want to contribute, it's both polite and constructive to catch up first to where the conversation already got to.

@unchartedworlds The Internet is not the street though, and there seems to be a divide about how different groups of people see the Internet.

Case in point: When I posted first on Fedi I expected my post to be shared, digested, etc. far and wide. Some people clearly expected the opposite.

Norms may have changed, they sometimes do. Still my best bet is that content both of us post on Fedi is shared, digested, etc. far and wide.

@buherator

It's in the nature of an analogy that the two situations aren't identical.

@unchartedworlds Of course. Our disagreements root in the fact that you find a street a good analogy for the Internet (in fact, I should've written Fedi/social media), while I don't.

@evan @dsalo dude

you've just said "I know most people in my small non-random sample set do not like this idea, but I am enthusiastic about pursuing it regardless because I find it compelling on aesthetic grounds"

and you've suggested to OP that she should read what you have to say...when she's made it clear that she DID read it, and disagrees, and that there's a literature on this topic that she's familiar with and you're not

um

pants: you could be wearing them

@sarae @dsalo Hi! Nice to meet you.

Most is not all -- not even close. Like I said, a 60-40 split.

I agree that it's not a random sample, nor is a Fediverse poll a binding vote. But it's clear that there are people on the Fediverse who are OK with having an archive.

I am interested to see the literature on social media archiving. I think it is absolutely essential to respect people's right to control their data and their right to choose. No means no.

@sarae @dsalo There isn't any literature on the group decision by the Fediverse to allow or disallow any kind of software on the Fediverse, because such a decision isn't possible. We each get to decide about how our own data is used, based on privacy law, copyright law, and some guiding principles.

@sarae @dsalo I updated the post with the link to the full thread to make it clear that she'd QP'd one of the posts out of it; thanks for the reminder.

@buherator

What do you think was the point I was trying to make with that analogy? Not asking you to agree with it, but can you put it into your own words?

@unchartedworlds My understanding is that on the street people mostly interact out of necessity, and because of this it is considered rude (or even illegal) to e.g. intercept one's conversation, follow them etc.

In my view the web and esp. social media[1] (like microblogging platforms of Fedi) were created with the explicit intention for people to be listened to, followed, commented on etc. (I'm sure you can come up with analogies, but I won't mention any to avoid misdirecting the conversation.)

Technology allows us to create more private/safe infrastructure than a street (encryption, access controls etc). Social media generally aims at the opposite direction (Fedi provides public plain text APIs for everyone to use).

[1] I use this word in the sense where people curate/produce information for each other, like on (micro)blogging platforms. The "let's keep in touch with my aunt" use-case is less relevant when talking about public content.

@buherator

I invited you to describe what you think _I_ meant, though.

Do you know the expression "steel-manning"?

@unchartedworlds TIL about steel-manning, it really sounds useful! When it comes to analogies though I think it may not be the right tool because arguing against an analogy requires to point out exactly where it breaks down instead of focusing on where it confirms the opposing argument. For example I could argue that it's fine to take pictures of birds on the street, but this would be an obviously bad argument for stalking people because people are not birds.

I described how I interpreted your analogy, I think this is as far as I can get describing what I think you think (lacking psychic abilities).

I also tried to explain our differences in thinking, and I'm genuinely curious if there's any point I miss (where I didn't manage to steel-man enough)!

@buherator

Well my point right now is, how are you imagining you can "explain our differences in thinking" when you haven't found out yet what my thinking _is_?

That doesn't make logical sense. It's like trying to calculate "x minus y" when you only know a value for "x".

When you actually _know_ the other person's argument, _then_ it makes sense to talk in terms of analysing differences.

What you _could_ do as a sequence for a stronger argument would be like

Step 1, steel-man to the best of your ability.

Step 2, "did I get your argument right, is that a fair representation" or words to that effect.

Step 3, if the answer is "no" then (if the other person is willing to say more) try to understand better.

Loop 1 to 3 till the other person is like "yeah you got it, that's how I see it". (You now have an approximation of the metaphorical "y".)

I'm not trying to tell you what to do, it's up to you if you want to bother, I'm just saying you won't be able to counter my points while you're imagining some other version of them from your own head :-)

@unchartedworlds

My Step 1.: "My understanding is ..."

My Step 2.: "I'm genuinely curious if there's any point I miss"

Waiting for you to take Step 3.