Hey, Evan, this shit isn't okay.
-
@alice@lgbtqia.space @AltAfterDark @alice_watson@infosec.exchange @alice@masto.thefword.club @alice_watson@mastodon.social let's say nothing changes: is the only way to stop this nonsense to campaign across all major instances to get the tags server blocked?
@bitbraindev after my public fight with Evan, my instances (and personal accounts) blocked all his domains and his account.
Yet, my stuff was still there on his site today, until I called it out and it appears he removed it.
Blocking seems like a good first step.
-
Do you consider this to be something you have given permission for?
@ricci I have a Mastodon.social account, and I share (some of) my posts there, so yes.
I do have them limited (and I screen follow requests from there) though, because like 80% of attacks I get come from Mastodon.social.
-
@toothpaste_sandwich you can see the whole ordeal here: https://lgbtqia.space/@alice/116825829843438277
The bottom line was that @evan@cosocial.ca assumed consent to slurp up my work (in this case a personal hashtag I use for my nude photos...and my posts containing said photos) and share it in a different context.
Also, I have discoverability settings turned off for sites outside of Fedi (and my instance actively blocks domains like X, Threads, Facebook, and BlueSky)—which Evan seems to be in bed with. So when his site was collecting and sharing my naked body with search engines (without asking), that was a gross violation of my consent.
@alice I see, thank you for taking the time to respond. I can see how this would circumvent the blocks you had set up, yes. And I agree that having to personally ask him to add exceptions for those hashtags is not particularly workable.
What makes you say he is "in bed with" those companies, though? That seems strange for someone working on the ActivityPub protocol.
-
@matty @alice here is my problem with the "it's posted public so it's for everyone to do whatever they wanna do with it" argument: there is something like an unwritten social etiquette in the fediverse based on mutual respect and especially on decency. Automating this all away for the sake of algorithms and reach is effectively throwing all that into the bin, removing the human factor from the loop. That's not why I joined the Fediverse...
@bitbraindev are you tring to say we came here to get away from the algorithms and don't want to see them come back? @matty @alice
-
@matty @alice here is my problem with the "it's posted public so it's for everyone to do whatever they wanna do with it" argument: there is something like an unwritten social etiquette in the fediverse based on mutual respect and especially on decency. Automating this all away for the sake of algorithms and reach is effectively throwing all that into the bin, removing the human factor from the loop. That's not why I joined the Fediverse...
@bitbraindev totally.
And this "I found it online, so it's fair game" mentality is something I fight against constantly with porn accounts who steal from sexworkers and repost it with the disclaimer "DM me to take your photos down".
It's like "no, asshole, you DM *me* if you want to use my work".
-
@ricci I have a Mastodon.social account, and I share (some of) my posts there, so yes.
I do have them limited (and I screen follow requests from there) though, because like 80% of attacks I get come from Mastodon.social.
Thanks, I appreciate your answer and explanation. Pretty much every Mastodon instance has an equivalent page, so for example:
https://berlin.social/tags/LearnLockpickingWithAlice
https://masto.nyc/tags/LearnLockpickingWithAlice
https://beige.party/tags/LearnLockpickingWithAlice
https://mamot.fr/tags/LearnLockpickingWithAlice
(I picked this basically at random, not to single out these particular servers)
Do you consider yourself to have given permission for these?
I am asking this because I want to understand whether the Mastodon software (and other fediverse software) behaves in a way that matches what users understand themselves to have consented to.
-
@Shdwdrgn yeah, "exposure" is a currency I've been offered before.
-
@crowbriarhexe @alice I mean, when a hashtag literally has the person’s name in it and is used only for their content and is often very sensitive content…it’s bonkers to act like it’s not something personal. Like, okay, most of us aren’t going to or couldn’t copyright our usernames, but it would be weird to have a bot spam a username or something like that and claim it’s not personal or targeted. Just creepy expectations and behavior
-
@matty @alice here is my problem with the "it's posted public so it's for everyone to do whatever they wanna do with it" argument: there is something like an unwritten social etiquette in the fediverse based on mutual respect and especially on decency. Automating this all away for the sake of algorithms and reach is effectively throwing all that into the bin, removing the human factor from the loop. That's not why I joined the Fediverse...
-
@alice I see, thank you for taking the time to respond. I can see how this would circumvent the blocks you had set up, yes. And I agree that having to personally ask him to add exceptions for those hashtags is not particularly workable.
What makes you say he is "in bed with" those companies, though? That seems strange for someone working on the ActivityPub protocol.
@toothpaste_sandwich several people DMd me to say that he had been working to get Threads into Fedi, and his projects list those socials for contacts.
I can understand the justification for (though I strongly disagree with) having accounts on X, Threads, BlueSky, or Facebook—they're huge, and a lot of people are still (unfortunately) there.
But I considered Threads move to "participate" in Fedi a hostile act by a company known for violating privacy and for removing protections against hate speech from their platform.
-
As far as I can tell, anything with #capitalists at the helm doesn't understand consent. And capitalism and sexual assault share a lot in common.
'Keep asking until they say yes.'
Or
'Do it anyways, and apologise if caught...and keep doing it'
Or
'Ignore criticism and keep doing it cause they cant stop you'@crankylinuxuser @zoe @alice consent requires respect. Naturally, the only thing capitalists respects is capital (money) and one cannot make more money by consenting alone. That's where lawmakers need to step in and make violating consent cost capital. Only then capitalists respect consent.
-
@toothpaste_sandwich several people DMd me to say that he had been working to get Threads into Fedi, and his projects list those socials for contacts.
I can understand the justification for (though I strongly disagree with) having accounts on X, Threads, BlueSky, or Facebook—they're huge, and a lot of people are still (unfortunately) there.
But I considered Threads move to "participate" in Fedi a hostile act by a company known for violating privacy and for removing protections against hate speech from their platform.
@alice yeah he runs a lot of little polls which ask people's opinions on particular topics around fedi politics and.......
well, like, it's a thing people could do with the best of intentions. in fact, the horribly malicious thing it reminds us of (which we'll skip describing, for brevity) was also implemented by people with the best of intentions
-
@alice yeah he runs a lot of little polls which ask people's opinions on particular topics around fedi politics and.......
well, like, it's a thing people could do with the best of intentions. in fact, the horribly malicious thing it reminds us of (which we'll skip describing, for brevity) was also implemented by people with the best of intentions
@ireneista @alice I most vividly remember his little poll trying to show that the fediverse was too hostile towards AI. The interactions around that were so completely toxic and boosterish that I think of Evan as a bad-faith actor as a result.
(Another for the annals of AI and boosterism damaging trust.)
-
@ireneista @alice I most vividly remember his little poll trying to show that the fediverse was too hostile towards AI. The interactions around that were so completely toxic and boosterish that I think of Evan as a bad-faith actor as a result.
(Another for the annals of AI and boosterism damaging trust.)
-
@matty @alice here is my problem with the "it's posted public so it's for everyone to do whatever they wanna do with it" argument: there is something like an unwritten social etiquette in the fediverse based on mutual respect and especially on decency. Automating this all away for the sake of algorithms and reach is effectively throwing all that into the bin, removing the human factor from the loop. That's not why I joined the Fediverse...
@bitbraindev @matty @alice yeah, it’s confusing. Maybe because he’s been involved in ActivityPub so long, he has this image in his head and thinks he has ownership over the space, but the culture and social space of the fediverse is a distinct thing now. This is not mass social media, this is more a “people socializing at a cafe or community center” kinda place, with social norms that have emerged in connection with that. I think a lot of us, like you said, see ourselves as interacting with human beings and even friends on her, rather than “accounts” or brands or content or whatever.
It’s disappointing since dude should know better, but thanks to the open source nature of things here, and the large quantity of IT catgirls, things could always fork off and leave him behind if he’s going to be immature or creepy about this stuff.
-
Thanks, I appreciate your answer and explanation. Pretty much every Mastodon instance has an equivalent page, so for example:
https://berlin.social/tags/LearnLockpickingWithAlice
https://masto.nyc/tags/LearnLockpickingWithAlice
https://beige.party/tags/LearnLockpickingWithAlice
https://mamot.fr/tags/LearnLockpickingWithAlice
(I picked this basically at random, not to single out these particular servers)
Do you consider yourself to have given permission for these?
I am asking this because I want to understand whether the Mastodon software (and other fediverse software) behaves in a way that matches what users understand themselves to have consented to.
@ricci I think it's expected behavior that my posts should be visible from instances we're federated with, but that new "services" that do something different or unexpected should *always* be *explicitly* opt-in.
The difference is that Evan's "service" created new accounts for all of these hashtags and used them to boost the posts in what came across as a very creepy, entitled, and nonconsensual way.
I don't want a bot called AlicePics on some other server, happily spending its life boosting only naked photos of me. That's creepy.
-
@FinchHaven @winst0nsmith @alice this "claim a hashtag" kinda gives off NFT vibes. I should shut up otherwise I give some people ideas
@bitbraindev @FinchHaven @winst0nsmith @alice Back soon. I'm going to claim #(redacted)FuckYourselfWithARustySpork
-
@ricci I think it's expected behavior that my posts should be visible from instances we're federated with, but that new "services" that do something different or unexpected should *always* be *explicitly* opt-in.
The difference is that Evan's "service" created new accounts for all of these hashtags and used them to boost the posts in what came across as a very creepy, entitled, and nonconsensual way.
I don't want a bot called AlicePics on some other server, happily spending its life boosting only naked photos of me. That's creepy.
@alice Yep, thanks! I know you've spent too much time already dealing with this, so I appreciate your willingness to answer!
-
@ireneista @alice I most vividly remember his little poll trying to show that the fediverse was too hostile towards AI. The interactions around that were so completely toxic and boosterish that I think of Evan as a bad-faith actor as a result.
(Another for the annals of AI and boosterism damaging trust.)
@ireneista @alice I should add that supporting the violation of consent required to scrape creative labor into AI training sets is already a huge red flag for how someone will approach consent in other ethical questions around social media networks. I do not trust Evan as a result of either incident, let alone tge two taken together.
-
As far as I can tell, anything with #capitalists at the helm doesn't understand consent. And capitalism and sexual assault share a lot in common.
'Keep asking until they say yes.'
Or
'Do it anyways, and apologise if caught...and keep doing it'
Or
'Ignore criticism and keep doing it cause they cant stop you'If you are not explicitly asking, you did not ask.
If you are not explicitly confirming, you did not confirm.
Humans who are not being explicit hide.
Humans who hide from explicit consent do so because they know what they hide is not consented.
Nothing about this is especially difficult to reason out.
Unless you are avoiding it.
The avoidance flags itself, so accept that when it does.
