@helge @julian i fail to see how any of what i'm saying is "whataboutism", in the same way that i fail to see how this supposed fix is valid.
-
@helge @julian i fail to see how any of what i'm saying is "whataboutism", in the same way that i fail to see how this supposed fix is valid. it's absolutely not a "lack of understanding of the fediverse", unless understanding the fediverse requires rejecting all reality external to one's own very specific interpretation. you could call what i am doing "bringing up counterexamples". mastodon leaking private likes on the receiving end doesn't negate the existence of private likes.
-
@helge @julian i fail to see how any of what i'm saying is "whataboutism", in the same way that i fail to see how this supposed fix is valid. it's absolutely not a "lack of understanding of the fediverse", unless understanding the fediverse requires rejecting all reality external to one's own very specific interpretation. you could call what i am doing "bringing up counterexamples". mastodon leaking private likes on the receiving end doesn't negate the existence of private likes.
@helge @julian there are some assertions being made that cannot be justified. there is no reason to say that as:to is required. requiring as:to solves nothing. all you accomplish is unnecessarily disallowing private activities. it should be enough to receive an activity to know that you are a recipient -- that is tautological. whether you are receiving it via to/cc/bto/bcc/audience/etc is extraneous information.
-
@helge @julian there are some assertions being made that cannot be justified. there is no reason to say that as:to is required. requiring as:to solves nothing. all you accomplish is unnecessarily disallowing private activities. it should be enough to receive an activity to know that you are a recipient -- that is tautological. whether you are receiving it via to/cc/bto/bcc/audience/etc is extraneous information.
@helge @julian if this creates any challenges for any software, it is an error in the software that should be corrected. any model of the world should be able to account for any possible observation, or else it is a flawed model. encountering information that doesn't fit the model can be ignored, or you can evolve the model to account for the new understanding. but building a model that fails to account for very basic use cases right from the start? not a good idea.
