Journalist says he finds it ‘surreal’ to have account on X suspended after writing critique of platform::The author’s account had over 100,000 followers and was around 14 years old, he said
Journalist says he finds it ‘surreal’ to have account on X suspended after writing critique of platform::The author’s account had over 100,000 followers and was around 14 years old, he said
I’d argue, oddly, that it’s easier to hold a single corporate entity accountable for data breaches than mastodon instance owners.
It’s likely the case that both of are bad from a data security point of view, but at least with the corporations you know who to shout at.
** edit just realised that mastodon may not work in the exact same way as Lemmy when it comes to instance owners, I’d have to look that up.
I’m inclined to agree, albeit I’m of two minds about it. On one hand, singular entity is technically easier, but being corporate means it’s likely to have more wealth/resources to make it untenable for people to hold accountable. Whereas on the other hand, if you put in the effort to pin down a Mastodon instance admin or even a few admins, chances are they won’t have those kinds of resources to really defend themselves, so you may be more likely to hold them accountable.
That is, compared to a corporate entity which may drag things out for a slap on the wrist settlement/fine or the like. I can see the different angles to where you’re coming from though.
First, I agree with what you’re saying here about the privacy issue.
The other side of that is that companies or even individual journalists could just spin up their own instance and not allow outsiders to sign up.
However, there needs to be a critical mass of engaged people. I don’t know what Mastodon’s engagement looks like but I can’t imagine it’s very high. With even the slightest barrier to entry beyond “sign up with your email address on our main site” there will never be as much engagement as a simpler platform. On top of that, a lot of news outlets consider hot takes on the social media site formerly known as Twitter to be news. So they embed dumb opinions from there in loads of “articles”.
It’s going to be a long road for them to leave and when they do it likely won’t be to join the Fediverse.
Edit: except possibly the BBC. Maybe if their trial pans out others would follow. We’ll see.
I know there are a lot of people in the various privacy and piracy boards who act like the world is against them and brag about how they only log in to social media through tor and blah blah blah.
They… are basically larping. Nobody actually cares about them.
Whereas, a journalist who investigates labor issues or something that is ACTUALLY illegal? There are plenty of stories about what happens when the companies that actually “own” the data suddenly want to use it to find you. This is when your life becomes having a dedicated laptop that is never on in the same physical location as any of your other devices, needing to change cars, and literally going into hiding.
Also… maybe look up Jordan “friendlyjordies” Shanks-Markovina. His story is not at all unique. He just happens to be brave/dumb enough to talk about it online (and have collaborators who use it for Content)
The worst the various pro-piracy instances will face is a few sacrificial lambs getting put into indentured servitude by a company. The “pro-journalism” instances will get abducted and/or firebombed.
This is why one of the first things musk did was talk about how he wants to work with China (I think?). He instantly made it clear that twitter would no longer even pretend to give a shit about the privacy of its users. Because you should never have sent anything sensitive over a DM. But coordinating a more secure form of communication was very much a thing. Same with “having time” to… flee a country before the dictator you exposed comes for you.