Title says it. Apparently lemmy devs are not concerned with such worldly matters as privacy, or respecting international privacy laws.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    seems weird this expectation of privacy on public sites built for public consumption of public content posted by people publicly.

    i mean, i get wanting to control your data. the software i use allows for this ( the 'bins offer a user-level purge).

    but privacy? seems weird

    • Snot Flickerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, to have a Lemmy account you already decided to put your trust in total strangers with questionable security credentials.

        • Snot Flickerman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Mastadon works the same way, all ActivityPub services work the same way.

          By being Federated that means data is being sent to remote servers. Sometimes that data doesn’t always make it, like a delete request. So someone on their own home-server deletes their post, but on some remote server where that post they made is cached, it’s not deleted, because the delete request never federated. For example, say you made a post on your own box, which you clearly have, and you delete a post, but it doesn’t get deleted over on say, Lemmy.world. That’s not purposeful, that’s something the developers also trying to fix, so I think it’s disingenuous to say they don’t care.

          This is literally a consequence of how federation works. It’s not a purposeful violation of GDPR.

        • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          You may not be directly using it, but this is part and parcel of the entire point of federated social media. Other software will be accessing the pool.