Facebook snooped on users' Snapchat traffic in secret project, documents reveal
Meta tried to gain a competitive advantage over its competitors, including Snapchat and later Amazon and YouTube, by analyzing the network traffic of how its users were interacting with Meta’s competitors. Given these apps’ use of encryption, Facebook needed to develop special technology to get around it.
Facebook’s engineers solution was to use Onavo, a VPN-like service that Facebook acquired in 2013. In 2019, Facebook shut down Onavo after a TechCrunch investigation revealed that Facebook had been secretly paying teenagers to use Onavo so the company could access all of their web activity.
After Zuckerberg’s email, the Onavo team took on the project and a month later proposed a solution: so-called kits that can be installed on iOS and Android that intercept traffic for specific subdomains, “allowing us to read what would otherwise be encrypted traffic so we can measure in-app usage,” read an email from July 2016. “This is a ‘man-in-the-middle’ approach.”
A man-in-the-middle attack — nowadays also called adversary-in-the-middle — is an attack where hackers intercept internet traffic flowing from one device to another over a network. When the network traffic is unencrypted, this type of attack allows the hackers to read the data inside, such as usernames, passwords, and other in-app activity.
And people want to let these parasites integrate into the fediverse
honest question: why does it matter? all data in any fediverse project is public anyways
For me it's not really about the data, it's unforseen malicious maneuvers outside data. Sabotaging instances, manipulating feeds for their gain, or try to still centralize the fediverse undermining the whole concept. My point is, we don't know what bad thing they could/would do, they are creative. But we sure as fuck know it's an evil organization and they can't be trusted.
that’s fair. I fully believe they could pull some fuckery that would make everything worse
Please tell me what governing body exists for the fediverse that would let us deny them access?
How is this a relevant question? Nobody said anything about some governing body. There have been discussions on many instances about whether to federate with them or not, and it’s accurate to say that some people think we should.
For example, I'm personally of the opinion that instances should be allowed to federate until they prove themselves to be bad actors, but in Meta's case there's a lot of existing evidence that shows they shouldn't be allowed to federate in the first instance.
Meta is the textbook definition of a bad actor. Plenty of precedent there.
Who do you imagine is (or should be) making these rules for the Fediverse?
Every instance gets to decide on its own, there's no set of rules governing the whole thing. That's why I stated this is my opinion, not some hard and fast rule.
You stated it very much as a set of rules that should exist. Twice.
Are you replying to the correct person?
Yes. Did you forget how to quote your whole post?
its also accurate to say some people are fucking idiots and think we should federate.
on the wax winged hope in hell that the bad actor suddenly, miraculously, becomes a good actor..for reasons no one can explain.
Do you know how the Fediverse works? Instance maintainers who are less than thrilled with Meta can choose to defederate from Threads.
Exactly my point. It’d be on an instance by instance basis, there is no “singular group” that can block them from the entire fediverse.
The whole point of federation is that you aren't locked in the sinking ship. If everyone is defederating from your instance you can move to a better one.
Yes, but to realistically keep Threads from federating and utilizing people’s posts, every single instance owner would have to defederate. 1) that’s not likely, and 2) that’s a unilateral decision by the instance owner. I’m looking at things from a realistic standpoint, not an idealistic one.
The only places Threads can federate with are instances that are so poorly managed that they don't even block Threads.
I wouldn't call lemmy.world poorly managed.
Which is probably a lot more than would be expected.
So long as my instance continues to block instances that don't block threads, I'm happy.
I don't need a public-facing microblogging service, I like having my own little dark corner on the internet. https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/23/evacuate-the-platforms/#let-the-platforms-burn
Good for you, but that won’t help majority of the people who don’t know or can’t run their own instance. Also the moment you make a post out to one of those instances that hasn’t defeated, Threads will just hoover your post right up. You’ll isolate yourself, sure, but not your posts or interactions. Welcome to ActivityPub.
I do suppose it’s better to only be implicitly training language models and making public posts which anyone is free to screenshot or repurpose compared to explicitly propagating all posts to Meta.
Why would I want to see posts from people on social networks who care so little about social networking that they've joined a corporate app?
It's not ideal, for sure, but at least I won't have to see any posts from threads.
Except my entire point hasn’t been about you, but you made it all about you. My original statement that there is no single source that can prevent threads from joining and interacting with the fediverse and that’s going to affect most people. I’m glad you have the know how to run things yourself but my statement was never about just “you”.
And?
I'm not most people, I'm me.
I'm not about to let other people's ignorance about the social media landscape keep me from enjoying my niche.
Or are paid not to block.
Im more specifically thinking about the big ones when this debate was going on about a couple of months ago.
Diaspora allows for whitelisting visibility of posts to certain users(and servers.. depending on where users are hosted)