this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
212 points (89.0% liked)

Fediverse

32822 readers
1130 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So check it out: Mastodon decided to implement follower-only posts for their users. All good. They did it in a way where they were still broadcasting those posts (described as "private") in a format that other servers could easily wind up erroneously showing them to random people. That's not ideal.

Probably the clearest explanation of the root of the problem is this:

Something you may not know about Mastodon's privacy settings is that they are recommendations, not demands. This means that it is up to each individual server whether or not it chooses to enforce them. For example, you may mark your post with unlisted, which indicates that servers shouldn't display the post on their global timelines, but servers which don't implement the unlisted privacy setting still can (and do).

Servers don't necessarily disregard Mastodon's privacy settings for malicious reasons. Mastodon's privacy settings aren't a part of the original OStatus protocol, and servers which don't run a recent version of the Mastodon software simply aren't configured to recognize them. This means that unlisted, private, or even direct posts may end up in places you didn't expect on one of these servers—like in the public timeline, or a user's reblogs.

That is super relevant for "private" posts by Mastodon. They fall into the same category as how you've been voting on Lemmy posts and comments: This stuff seems private, because it's being hidden in your UI, but it's actually being broadcasted out to random untrusted servers behind the scenes, and some server software is going to expose it. It's simply going to happen. You need to be aware of that. Even if it's not shown in your UI, it is available.

Anyway, Pixelfed had a bug in its handling of those types of posts, which meant that in some circumstances it would show them to everyone. Somebody wrote on her blog about how her partner has been posting sensitive information as "private," and Pixelfed was exposing it, and how it's a massive problem. For some reason, Dansup (Pixelfed author) taking it seriously and fixing the problem and pushing out a new version within a few days only made this person more upset, because in her (IMO incorrect) opinion, the way Dansup had done it was wrong.

I think the blog-writer is just mistaken about some of the technical issues involved. It sounds like she's planning on telling her partner that it's still okay to be posting her private stuff on Mastodon, marked "private," now that Pixelfed and only Pixelfed has fixed the issue. I think that's a huge mistake for reasons that should be obvious. It sounds like she's very upset that Dansup made it explicit that he was fixing this issue, thinking that even exposing it in commit comments (which as we know get way more readership than blog posts) would mean people knew about it, and the less people that knew about it, the safer her partner's information would be since she is continuing to do this apparently. You will not be surprised to discover that I think that type of thinking is also a mistake.

That's not even what I want to talk about, though. I have done security-related work professionally before, so maybe I look at this stuff from a different perspective than this lady does. What I want to talk about is this type of comments on Lemmy, when this situation got posted here under the title "Pixelfed leaks private posts from other Fediverse instances":

Non-malicious servers aren’t supposed to do what Pixelfed did.

Pixelfed got caught with its pants down

rtfm and do NOT give a rest to bad behaving software

dansup remains either incompetent for implementing badly something easy or toxic for federating ignoring what the federation requires

i completely blame pixelfed here: it breaks trust in transit and that’s unacceptable because it makes the system untrustworthy

periodic reminder to not touch dansup software and to move away from pixelfed and loops

dansup is not competent and quite problematic and it’s not even over

developers with less funding (even 0) contributed way more to fedi, they’re just less vocal

dansup is all bark no bite, stop falling for it

dansup showed quite some incompetence in handling security, delivering features, communicating clearly and honestly and treating properly third party devs

I sort of started out in the ensuing conversation just explaining the issues involved, because they are subtle, but there are people who are still sending me messages a day later insisting that Dansup is a big piece of shit and he broke the internet on purpose. They're also consistently upset, among other reasons, that he's getting paid because people like the stuff he made and gave away, and chose to back his Kickstarter. Very upset. I keep hearing about it.

This is not the first time, or even the first time with Dansup. From time to time, I see this with some kind of person on the Fediverse who's doing something. Usually someone who's giving away their time to do something for everyone else. Then there's some giant outcry that they are "problematic" or awful on purpose in some way. With Dansup at least, every time I've looked at it, it's mostly been trumped-up nonsense. The worst it ever is, in actuality, is "he got mad and posted an angry status HOW DARE HE." Usually it is based more or less on nothing.

Dansup isn't just a person making free software, who sometimes posts angry unreasonable statuses or gets embroiled in drama for some reason because he is human and has human emotions. He's the worst. He is toxic and unhinged. He is keeping his Loops code secret and breaking his promises. He makes money. He broke privacy for everyone (no don't tell me any details about the protocol or why he didn't he broke it for everyone) (and don't tell me he fixed it in a few days and pushed out a new version that just makes it worse because he put it in the notes and it'll be hard for people to upgrade anyway so it doesn't count)

And so on.

Some particular moderator isn't just a person who sometimes makes poor moderation decisions and then doubles down on them. No, he is:

a racist and a zionist and will do whatever he can to delete pro-Palestinian posts, or posts that criticize Israel.

a vile, racist, zionist piece of shit, and anyone who defends or supports him is sitting at the table with him and accepts those labels for themselves.

And so on. The exact same pattern happened with a different lemmy.world mod who was extensively harassed for months for various made-up bullshit, all the way up until the time where he (related or not) decided to stop modding altogether.

It's weird. Why are people so vindictive and personal, and why do they double down so enthusiastically about taking it to this personal place where this person involved is being bad on purpose and needs to be attacked for being horrible, instead of just being a normal person with a variety of normal human failings as we all have? Why are people so un-amenable to someone trying to say "actually it's not that simple", to the point that a day later my inbox is still getting peppered with insistences that Dansup is the worst on this private-posts issue, and I'm completely wrong and incompetent for thinking otherwise and all the references I've been digging up and sending to try to illustrate the point are just more proof that I'm horrible?

Guys: Chill out.

I would just recommend, if you are one of these people that likes to double down on all this stuff and get all amped-up about how some particular fediverse person is "problematic" or "toxic" or various other vague insinuations, or you feel the need to bring up all kinds of past drama any time anything at all happens with the person, that you not.

I am probably guilty of this sometimes. I definitely like to give people hell sometimes, if in my opinion they are doing something that's causing a problem. But the extent to which the fediverse seems to like to do this stuff just seems really extreme to me, and a lot of times what it's based on is just weird petty bullying nonsense.

Just take it it with a grain of salt, too, if you see it, is also what I'm saying. Whether it comes from me or whoever. A lot of times, the issue doesn't look like such a huge deal once you strip away the histrionics and the assumption that everyone's being malicious on purpose. Doubly so if the emotion and the innuendo is running way ahead of what the actual facts are.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm OOTL, ~~who is Dansup~~? (missed the parentheses) What does this person have to do with private posts not being private?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Dansup is a developer who made Pixelfed and Loops.

Depending on who you ask, he either fucked up Pixelfed in a way that exposed Mastodon users' private posts, or else Mastodon implemented private posts poorly and he got caught in the crossfire. I'm firmly in the second camp, so much so that I think it's misleading to describe it in that both-sides type of way, but regardless, that is the lay of the land of the drama.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Never trust the client, right? In this case, the client is another server, run by different people. If software A can fuck up software B, software B is the one that should be fixed with better security. Thanks for clarifying btw!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

Yes. That is 100% my feeling.

Happy to be of service.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

When I first started the reading I figured the person being bullied was the woman who was upset with dan because her concern about disclosure wasn’t really reasonable. I don’t think the bullying problem is innate to the fediverse, and thankfully we have a lot of tools to safely navigate the fediverse and tune out the abuse.

But there is a not insignificant portion of folks on here that are here because they were banned or warned on mainstream platforms because they couldn’t regulate themselves and still aren’t regulating themselves.

The vast majority of people I’ve came across are genuinely kind. Dansup doesn’t exactly follow best practices in his development which I think causes a lot of strife in the segment of the fedi population who can’t regulate when someone does something they don’t agree with.

I don’t agree with how he has handled loops so I just don’t use it. I don’t think ill of Dan at all.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

But there is a not insignificant portion of folks on here that are here because they were banned or warned on mainstream platforms because they couldn’t regulate themselves and still aren’t regulating themselves.

What?

Plenty of people on mainstream platforms are obnoxious. Twitter and Reddit in particular are hives of villainy that make anything available on Fedi platforms look childish. Why do you think people are here because they were ejected from mainstream platforms?

Dansup doesn’t exactly follow best practices in his development which I think causes a lot of strife

What?

Can you elaborate?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

People get so weird about Dansup.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is in part because he's in public trainwreck mode fairly often.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why are people so vindictive and personal, and why do they double down so enthusiastically about taking it to this personal place where this person involved is being bad on purpose and needs to be attacked for being horrible, instead of just being a normal person with a variety of normal human failings as we all have?

First time on the internet? This happens everywhere, more so when you're anonymous or pseudonymous, but whenever you're behind a screen and everyone on the other side is just a username being controlled by an idiot or a troll.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Agreed. Reddit and Twitter were bad for bullying, doxxing, or just general nastiness, I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen on Mastodon, or the Fediverse in general, but it’s nothing like as bad.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Until someone does something not FOSS'y or anti-linux.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

If Mastodon/Fedi was at the scale those platforms are we would see more harassment, absolutely. It remains to be proven but I think federation enables a lot more eyes on content which implies harassing material can be removed more quickly.

Federation/decentralization solves a lot of problems over centralized social media, but ultimatley you can't engineer human nature.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

If you build it, they will come

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

So, I was probably (one of) the first to post that “Pixelfed leaks private posts” thing on here? I first wrote a long reply to this, but it sort if got away from me. The short version would be,

A) sure, the fediverse has a bullying problem in the sense that people do, and that that is usually exacerbated in any online comment field. People are awful, and that includes me, you, Dansup, and anybody reading this. We're also usually pretty brilliant when nobody's looking.

B) despite what I write above, I don't take bullying lightly. I am really uncomfortable with how you use the generally phrased headline to address this specific case. You're not writing about the fediverse as such, you're casting Dansup as a victim.

C) Dan's up, Dan's down, Dan's a victim, Dan's throwing a fit online and then deleting the tweets. As you cite in OP, some people attribute all sorts of unrelated evil to him. Most of all, my impression is Dansup has as a hard time separating from his role as main developer on Pixelfed, Loops, etc, as online commenters has separating his work from (perceived) personal faults.

D) let's imagine those projects were fully open sourced and developed by the community already. Would we be in the same situation here? Again, resorting to ad hominem bullying in online discussion is unacceptable, but I do question that Dansup is an unequivocable victim. Nor is he an evil mastermind who has engineered this situation to garner pity. He just seems to be extremely hard working, with a generous pinch of need for control of his projects.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

They should implement some form of pgp into private posts so only folks with the right key can decrypt

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago

you’re casting Dansup as a victim

Correct. The original blog post wasn’t really all that bullying, I just thought it was mistaken about the security issues involved. The subsequent comments (“incompetent” “toxic” “quite problematic” “funding funding funding” and so on) were what I would describe as bullying. And, it fits a pattern where people take some issue (often one like this where he didn’t even theoretically do anything wrong) and use it as a jumping-off point to start the personal attacks.

Dan’s up, Dan’s down, Dan’s a victim, Dan’s throwing a fit online and then deleting the tweets. As you cite in OP, some people attribute all sorts of unrelated evil to him. Most of all, my impression is Dansup has as a hard time separating from his role as main developer on Pixelfed, Loops, etc, as online commenters has separating his work from (perceived) personal faults.

What?

Why should he separate from his role as main developer? This makes no sense. “Sure those people got personally insulting with Dan for no reason at all, but you have to remember, he’s the main developer of these projects and he won’t separate from them. So it’s complicated.” What?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Back when I was younger and naïve, I would Nicolas Cage OP.

I'm now more mature and open minded, and I can say I wholesomely agree with @[email protected]’s statement ITT.

Technologists have very little patience for people that are technologically illiterate. And when you're fighting to liberate people against corporations that send hitlists against you, patience runs faster. My hope is that people like OP can empathize that while yes, public technologies can be harmful and downright hostile, they can take their time to comprehend concepts technologist took their time to write down and document for.

If you want private conversations with peers, it must be encrypted, it must be forward secret, and it must be authenticatable.

XMPP, SimpleXchat, & Signal are the only three that fit these specifications.

I have the first two (check my bio👈😎👈), the latter I do not trust.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

the latter I do not trust.

Am I reading the article wrong? Is it not a good thing that they refused to comply with the hostile anti-encryption law?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It sounds like she's very upset that Dansup made it explicit that he was fixing this issue, thinking that even exposing it in commit comments (which as we know get way more readership than blog posts) would mean people knew about it, and the less people that knew about it, the safer her partner's information would be since she is continuing to do this apparently. You will not be surprised to discover that I think that type of thinking is also a mistake.

I agreed with you at first because from your description it sounded like she was saying security through obscurity was a good thing. But that’s not the case.

What she’s saying in the blog post is that this a 0-day and should be handled according to the best practices for 0-day disclosure.

You have to decide if you want to

  • publish the findings before the fix -> more people will know and exploit the vulnerability but users might be aware and may or may not be able to mitigate sharing even more
  • publish the findings after the fix -> the opposite

I don’t pretend to know enough to judge which option is the best. But I can’t fault the blog author for pointing out that Dansup didn’t follow best practices.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I don't think dansup was in the wrong here. Yes, it's a security issue I suppose, but the problem lies within the underlying protocol. Any server you interact with can ignore any privacy markers you add to posts, you're just not supposed to do that.

Whether this is a 0day depends on what you expect out of the Fediverse. If you treat it like a medium where every user or server has the potential to be hostile, like you probably should, this is a mere validation logic bug. If you treat it like the social media many of its servers are trying to be, it's a gross violation of your basic privacy expectations.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

more people will know and exploit the vulnerability

It's not even a vulnerability, it's how AP works by design, is the issue at hand here. Mastodon decided they wanted to implement something not supported by AP, and everybody else had to take the heat for not 'doing it right'.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That is still not the point the commenter and the original blog author were making.

What we can take away from this episode is that Pixelfed implemented the fix in a way that suggests they would not handle a 0 day exploit with a "reql" vulnerability well. And having followed dansup's projects for a while that doesnt surprise me, because he clearly prefers to work "chaoticly" than in a structured, regulated way.

The "taking the heat" is something completely seprrate and boils down to stupid people on the internet needing to be angry at someone.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm not sure you can make that conclusion. This isn't a real vulnerability, and this isn't a surprise to anybody who knows how the AP protocol works. Dansup didn't reveal anything that was previously unknown, the blog author just has an axe to grind. It's unfair to assume that an actual 0 day vulnerability would have been treated the same way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I’m genuinely curious what you would call this and what distinguishes it from a vulnerability.

Leaving aside responsibility, the system could have been set up in a way that wouldn’t have exposed user data but wasn’t. This is now fixed and user data isn’t exposed via this method any longer. What is the right word for what it was at the moment this flaw was discovered?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Correct. And as I tangentially mentioned, even if you do think this needs to be kept secret, then the blog author would still be wrong, because this blog post is doing is doing way more “harm” by publicizing the issue than any amount of commit notes ever could.

But yes, trying to keep this secret like a 0-day is completely the backwards model for how to handle it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago

I’d argue that it is still a vulnerability in this scenario. But point taken, it’s always important to find the root cause and not just put blame on the person who stumbled into the trap.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This guy is being reasonable, get the pitchforks!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This guy also being a perpetrator of bullying because he didn't like moderation decisions makes this post a bit ironic though 🤷

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, I alluded to that when I said I'm probably guilty of it sometimes.

A reasonable person could say that I tend to bully the mods when I disagree with something they've done. I do think that when you sign up to control people's experience and delete messages you don't agree with, you're signing up to have your decisions criticized. Reasonably or not. It's absurd to say that no one is allowed to get upset or air their grievances when the moderators apply moderation in a way that they don't like, because the end state of that setup is Reddit. But in fairness you are not wrong, sometimes I take it too far, and I think I should cool it at least a little with getting embittered about people moderating me in ways I don't like.

Also, just for the record I've never had any issue on any level with you specifically. My whole anger at one of your moderators posting electoral propaganda and then banning people who disagreed with it, was that I thought he was hijacking his way into the slrpnk good graces for his own agenda, not that that was the intent behind the whole instance or anything. I've started being snarky towards the instance as a whole since the slrpnk admin team for some reason came out swinging hard to defend him on that, and then also gave out some further deletions and bans afterwards that I thought were equally silly, but it was more because I felt like you were supposed to be one of the good instances that supported people being able to have the conversations they wanted to have, and move the whole network in a good direction. I definitely wasn't happy about it or looking for that embittered interaction.

(For context for anyone who's confused, here are some instances of what might be called bullying that I've done previously. The second one in particular sort of makes me cringe to post here, because it's exactly the kind of sour grapes innuendo that I'm complaining about when people aim it at Dansup.)

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›