HomeSearchPrevious dayNext day

00:01:24BornOn420 quits [Remote host closed the connection]
00:02:05BornOn420 (BornOn420) joins
00:09:39riteo quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
00:21:03BornOn420 quits [Remote host closed the connection]
00:21:41BornOn420 (BornOn420) joins
00:22:25Guest58 joins
00:23:35Guest58 quits [Client Quit]
00:31:09Czechball4 joins
00:31:14Czechball quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
00:31:14Czechball4 is now known as Czechball
00:57:34etnguyen03 (etnguyen03) joins
00:57:41HackMii quits [Remote host closed the connection]
00:58:01HackMii (hacktheplanet) joins
01:09:17etnguyen03 quits [Client Quit]
01:09:17riteo (riteo) joins
01:14:15Guest58 joins
01:14:35etnguyen03 (etnguyen03) joins
01:32:26Guest58 quits [Client Quit]
01:48:13<pabs>lunduke is a bit of a MAGA person too
02:24:31etnguyen03 quits [Remote host closed the connection]
02:46:25basix (basix) joins
03:34:59<@JAA>Apple being Apple: https://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jun/19
03:54:15<nicolas17>this is somewhat sus
03:57:41<nicolas17>https://substack.com/home/post/p-165240286 same guy
03:57:44<nicolas17>https://substack.com/home/post/p-165008980 same guy
03:57:46<nicolas17>I suspect AI slop
04:00:12<pabs>non-JS link https://weareapartyof1.substack.com/p/glass-cage-zero-day-imessage-attack
04:52:23HackMii quits [Remote host closed the connection]
04:52:42HackMii (hacktheplanet) joins
05:14:44katocala quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
05:35:14basix quits [Client Quit]
06:50:15Guest58 joins
06:58:35tek_dmn quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
07:19:26Guest58 quits [Client Quit]
07:26:10HackMii quits [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
07:28:32HackMii (hacktheplanet) joins
07:42:18ducky quits [Remote host closed the connection]
07:42:40ducky (ducky) joins
07:47:34ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
08:00:08ducky (ducky) joins
08:04:29ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
08:05:19ducky (ducky) joins
08:09:09Guest58 joins
08:09:44ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
08:22:54ducky (ducky) joins
08:27:13lemuria (lemuria) joins
08:27:38ducky quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
08:40:22ducky (ducky) joins
08:44:44ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
08:49:22Dada joins
08:56:57linuxgemini quits [Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds)]
08:57:16linuxgemini (linuxgemini) joins
08:57:57ducky (ducky) joins
09:02:44ducky quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
09:04:33linuxgemini quits [Client Quit]
09:04:55linuxgemini (linuxgemini) joins
09:13:29ducky (ducky) joins
09:13:41linuxgemini quits [Client Quit]
09:14:10linuxgemini (linuxgemini) joins
09:17:59ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
09:31:00ducky (ducky) joins
09:35:53ducky quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
09:46:32ducky (ducky) joins
09:49:47tek_dmn (tek_dmn) joins
09:51:14ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
10:04:06ducky (ducky) joins
10:09:02ducky quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
10:21:39ducky (ducky) joins
10:26:35ducky quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
10:36:59APOLLO03 quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
10:39:08ducky (ducky) joins
10:39:39nyakase quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
10:43:44ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
10:52:37APOLLO03 joins
10:56:40ducky (ducky) joins
11:00:03Bleo182600722719623455222 quits [Quit: The Lounge - https://thelounge.chat]
11:01:41ducky quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:02:50Bleo182600722719623455222 joins
11:14:07ducky (ducky) joins
11:18:44ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:31:41ducky (ducky) joins
11:36:47ducky quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:38:58HackMii quits [Remote host closed the connection]
11:41:10BornOn420 quits [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
11:42:41HackMii (hacktheplanet) joins
11:49:08ducky (ducky) joins
11:53:38BornOn420 (BornOn420) joins
11:53:44ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:56:02ducky (ducky) joins
12:00:41ducky_ (ducky) joins
12:00:44ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
12:02:07ducky_ quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:02:11ducky (ducky) joins
12:07:09ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
12:13:34pabs quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
12:19:56ducky (ducky) joins
12:25:14ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
12:25:19ducky (ducky) joins
12:26:45ducky_ (ducky) joins
12:30:29ducky quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
12:31:39ducky_ quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
12:31:50ducky (ducky) joins
12:37:14ducky quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
12:42:03katocala joins
12:48:34ducky (ducky) joins
12:58:26<tzt>mastodon.social updates terms of service to prohibit archiving https://mastodon.social/terms-of-service "Accordingly, you may not, or assist any other person to (or attempt to): " ... " Use, launch, develop, or distribute any automated system, including without limitation, any spider, robot, cheat utility, scraper, offline reader, or any data mining or similar data gathering
12:58:28<tzt>extraction tools to access the Instance, except in each case as may be the result of standard search engine or Internet browser and local caching or for human review and interaction with Content on the Instance;"
12:58:46<anarcat>wtf
13:07:48<BlankEclair>h
13:08:29pabs (pabs) joins
13:17:42<joepie91|m>that sort of makes sense
13:18:07<joepie91|m>the intention makes sense (this is an anti-LLM-scraper clause basically) though I doubt it's very usefully enforceable
13:18:36<joepie91|m>and it also makes some amount of sense re: archival, though it's a bit of a blunt tool there
13:24:19lunax quits [Remote host closed the connection]
13:24:33lunax (lunax) joins
13:27:55<@arkiver>online public material that can be referenced elsewhere should be allowed to be archived
13:28:56<joepie91|m>the 'public' is load-bearing here; that term can have a vast array of meanings depending on context
13:29:12<@arkiver>publicly viewable
13:29:35<joepie91|m>that is one very specific interpretation of 'public', and with that interpretation I cannot agree with your statement
13:29:45<@arkiver>whether those web archives can be made accessible on a large scale is a different question
13:29:46<joepie91|m>that someone agrees to publicly display something does not mean that they agree for it to be preserved forever
13:30:10<joepie91|m>and by doing so, you take away their control over its visibility. that can be justified, depending on circumstances, but it absolutely isn't as absolute as "if X, then Y should be allowed"
13:30:14<@arkiver>for example some post on mastodon may be referenced in some other article/research/etc.
13:30:56<@arkiver>yes, see my second note on large scale accessibility - that is why many Archive Team archives are now only viewable through the Wayback Machine and do not have their WARCs directly downloadable
13:31:16<@arkiver>the Wayback Machine then decides (sometimes implicitly through technical limitations) what is availble and on what scale
13:31:24<joepie91|m>that is not really any less public in practice
13:32:12<joepie91|m>everybody in the chain from collection to publication shares an amount of responsibility over the process
13:33:19<@arkiver>i will leave that as a different issue
13:34:24<@arkiver>but back to that initial issue. i do not feel great with the idea that someone may make information fully public, allow anyone to see it and allow for anyone to have their opinions (or later published information) to be impacted/affected by it... but then disallow archiving.
13:34:27<joepie91|m>you cannot separate consent and responsibility from the question of whether "publicly accessible on a technical level" is in and of itself sufficient justification for archival
13:34:40<joepie91|m>these are the same topic
13:34:53<@arkiver>and again - i'm not saying archiving is the same as making it available on a significant scale, it may be available only to researchers for example
13:35:13<joepie91|m>the question of consent is not any less relevant there, just the inputs to the process change somewhat
13:35:35<joepie91|m>there exists no form of archival where consent is entirely irrelevant as a factor
13:36:38<@arkiver>information will be made unavailable through the Wayback Machine if there are good reasons (leaked information, abuse, etc.)
13:36:44<@arkiver>so there is a process for that
13:36:58<@arkiver>but disallowing archiving in general of an entire 'platform'/software is not the way to go
13:37:11<joepie91|m>surely I do not need to explain that opt-out is not a valid form of consent?
13:37:25<@arkiver>then they should put it in behind a login, and restrict the public visibility of the information actovely
13:37:41<joepie91|m>like, my problem isn't with archival in itself, it's that you're trying to systematically remove the question of consent from the consideration entirelyh
13:37:55<joepie91|m>this is an irresponsible way to do archiving
13:38:45<joepie91|m>it is entirely possible to take the matter of consent into account, and still conclude that a particular case is justified even if there is no consent. but this is a consideration that you actually need to make for a case, you cannot systematically exclude consent from the picture entirely
13:39:23<joepie91|m>and this is why "archiving publicly accessible things is fine", as such an absolute statement, is imo not a valid position to hold
13:40:32<@arkiver>i would say _the act of archiving_ would be fine, but _the act of making it public_ may not be fine. there are mechanisms that will work on that issue of making archives public
13:41:00<joepie91|m>it applies to both archival and publication, just with different considerations.
13:43:11<@arkiver>an example on the act of archiving - Archive Team does not currently (there have been exceptions many many years ago) archive data behind a login wall, since we interpret that login wall as a signal that the content is not publicly accessible
13:43:41<joepie91|m>sure. what I am saying is that that is not the only signal.
13:43:55<@arkiver>however, not creating a login wall signals that the content is publicly accessible, and how a human may see it, an archivist may "see"/archive it
13:44:07<joepie91|m>"it's behind a login wall" is a good reason to assume that it is not meant to be public. but "it's not behind a login wall" is not a good reason to assume that you are allowed to preserve it forever.
13:44:20<joepie91|m>arkiver: no, it doesn't.
13:45:05<joepie91|m>"seeing" and "archiving" are two entirely different things with entirely different implications, and only one of them is usually what people consider when deciding to make something public, and it isn't archival
13:46:19<@arkiver>in that light, how do you view allowing for archive to be made inaccessible afterwards on valid request?
13:46:34<@arkiver>archives*
13:46:56<joepie91|m>that is an opt-out system, and opt-out systems do not establish consent. that doesn't mean they are never appropriate, but they are not an automatic answer to the consideration of consent, which still needs to be made
13:48:25<@arkiver>i agree that the possibility of archiving is certainly not always kept in mind when making data public - but this data has real world implications... which people also do not often realize.
13:49:14<@arkiver>because these real world implication _are there_ regardless of whether that was known beforehand, i think it makes a case for archiving to be allowed
13:49:39<joepie91|m>I am not following your reasoning there, this is very vague
13:49:57<joepie91|m>what does "real world implications" mean here exactly, and how does it relate to archiving?
13:50:04<@arkiver>moving on to making data accessible. once a user realizes their content has implications (affecting other later information), they may remove their content - and similarly they can request for content to be taken down from web archives
13:51:09<@arkiver>on real world implications (maybe "real world" is the wrong words to use, but): affecting opinions of others, affecting the later published information which may be partially based on the previous publicly posted information.
13:51:43<joepie91|m>sure. what does any of this have to do with consent as a factor to consider?
13:52:41<@arkiver>i see it doesn't fit your previous point - it's about how retracting live information can be compared to making data unavailable in archives
13:53:17<joepie91|m>it can't really be, for a number of reasons, but it's a tangent from what I was trying to bring u
13:53:18<joepie91|m>up*
13:53:34<@arkiver>people also do not consent for information to be used by other explicitly. they may not realize it is used in various ways, but it _will_ be used by others (not talking about web archiving as use there), and for that reason it should be archivable
13:53:53<joepie91|m>this is a non-sequitur
13:54:31<joepie91|m>like, the most charitable argument I can read in this - and it isn't very charitable - is "consent doesn't really matter and it's much more important whether it might be useful to someone later"
13:54:48<joepie91|m>which, uh. if that's the argument being made here, I would ask you to sit on that and its implications for a bit
13:55:51<@arkiver>i'm talking about information affecting other information, and the (in)ability to trace back origin of information and references
13:56:04<joepie91|m>yes, that is the "might be useful to someone later" part
13:56:09<@arkiver>which is very much related to the fact-checking we see a lot nowadays
13:56:25<@arkiver>which would be nearly impossible without web archives
13:57:19<joepie91|m>I understand this perfectly well, I have been around for a while, but it ultimately has nothing to do with my criticism here, which is that you're trying to find a magical universal justification that automatically lands on the side of "archival is justified" rather than considering things like the weight of consent on a case-by-case basis
13:57:46<joepie91|m>ie. you are trying to remove consent from the picture entirely, writing it off as if "possible public interest" is automatically more important
13:58:11<joepie91|m>that is my problem with this whole line of reasoning
13:59:22<joepie91|m>that there are circumstances where public interest weighs more heavily than consent, doesn't mean that all publicly accessible information exists under those circumstances, and the reasoning doesn't transfer
13:59:53<joepie91|m>and so it does not justify "if it's publicly accessible, it's okay to archive"
14:04:49<@imer>there isn't really a way to make such a decision at scale though, and even then the decision might change based on the current political climate, people changing their mind or any other reason
14:06:01<joepie91|m>there isn't a way to make it perfectly, sure. that doesn't mean it's not possible to make that consideration as best as you can, which will certainly be better than "just assuming it's fine"
14:23:17<@imer>what does that mean in your eyes though? I'm sure you can agree trying to contact users of a service (for publishing data openly on the internet) that is shutting down isn't something that is possible
14:36:16<joepie91|m>generally that's not viable indeed, at least with short shutdown periods (which is a lot of what archiveteam deals with). so I more mean weighing the different considerations (need for consent, public interest, etc.), as well as assessing what people would likely answer if you could ask them whether it's okay to archive their stuff. for example, something like Medium usually contains deliberate public writing, things that are meant to be
14:36:16<joepie91|m>spread around and 'persist', whereas on fedi there's generally a very strong opposition to automated collection or scraping of any kind because it's more of a place for personal interaction, and so the scales are tipped in quite different directions on those two examples
14:36:19flotwig quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:36:29fuzzy80211 quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:36:47<joepie91|m>both are publicly accessible on a technical level, but the people using it have very different expectations of what the platform is for and what they can expect from it
14:38:06flotwig joins
14:39:55<joepie91|m>even between twitter and fedi there's a significant difference, for example; before media started writing about mastodon as a 'twitter replacement', they had very different cultures and usecases, with fedi mainly consisting of people who didn't like the "public square" nature of twitter
14:56:23<TheTechRobo>I personally think putting something on a public website without any sort of authentication is mutually exclusive to not wanting it to be archived.
14:57:12<TheTechRobo>The saying that once you post something on the Internet, it's there forever is pretty common to hear.
14:58:03<joepie91|m>okay, fine, I will be a bit less subtle about it: "you should expect things to be taken if you don't lock them down" is how abusers speak
14:58:33<joepie91|m>it does not matter how common that saying is, it still is not a justification for violating people's agency
14:59:40<joepie91|m>like, I've tried to explain at length above already why "if it's accessible it's fine" is not a reasonable decisionmaking process, if we're just going to loop around to repeating that exact same claim, then I'm going to be a lot less patient about it the second time around
15:06:49katocala quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
15:06:57katocala joins
15:21:41<nicolas17>joepie91|m: should we stop the youtube project until we get consent from the channel owners?
15:21:43grill (grill) joins
15:21:47<nicolas17>and from youtube itself?
15:28:17<joepie91|m>I'm unsure whether this question is meant to be rhetorical
15:30:09grill quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
15:31:47grill (grill) joins
17:02:54grill quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
17:07:40Guest58 quits [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
17:24:32Juest quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
17:24:39Juesto (Juest) joins
17:26:10Juesto is now known as Juest
17:34:39fuzzy80211 (fuzzy80211) joins
17:52:00Webuser319722 joins
17:52:38Webuser319722 leaves
18:04:34BornOn420 quits [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
18:05:11grill (grill) joins
18:17:55BornOn420 (BornOn420) joins
18:56:50grill quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
18:57:56grill (grill) joins
19:11:22<katia>i think the question is something like what would the opt in be for youtube? i'm not sure
19:22:12<nicolas17>why is it ok to archive from youtube against youtube's wishes and without consent of the channel owner, but with mastodon it's different? maybe there *is* a difference and I'm not seeing it
19:39:44tek_dmn quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
19:40:21<ymgve>big company vs small company
19:40:23Chris5010 quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
19:41:04<nicolas17>huh I thought this was about consent from the users who provided the content, not the company
19:42:09Chris5010 (Chris5010) joins
19:42:20grill quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
20:11:17nulldata-alt1 (nulldata) joins
20:13:04nulldata-alt quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
20:13:04nulldata-alt1 is now known as nulldata-alt
20:14:49tek_dmn (tek_dmn) joins
20:21:44fritz_adalis joins
20:31:44tek_dmn quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:11:24Riku_V quits [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:12:22PredatorIWD25 quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
21:15:39Riku_V (riku) joins
21:15:52PredatorIWD25 joins
21:56:54xarph quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
21:57:27xarph joins
22:00:24etnguyen03 (etnguyen03) joins
22:01:28<joepie91|m>nicolas17: my point is indeed about the users who provided the content, not the company - youtube is a somewhat more nuanced case, because there's a lot of inadvertently public stuff on there, but besides that people largely publish on there with the explicit intention to become popular and recognized, and this tips the scales more towards "archival is okay" because it's much less personal in nature. though probably some precautions should
22:01:28<joepie91|m>be taken in dealing with the accidentally public stuff (eg. based on view count)
22:02:45<nicolas17>yeahhh I'm sure social media doesn't involve "intention to become popular and recognized" :D
22:03:09<joepie91|m>fedi specifically doesn't
22:03:18<joepie91|m>that is half the point of why people use it...
22:03:46<joepie91|m>but with that kind of response I get the sense that you're looking for a 'gotcha' rather than a genuine discussion so I'm off to bed
22:06:45<nicolas17>JAA: oh no why https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9292 why
22:14:12<@JAA>nicolas17: Eh, HTTP/2 already did that.
22:14:28<nicolas17>from the wireshark commit message "It is a binary format that bears similarities to HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 frames but is distinct from them."
22:14:41<@JAA>Yeah
22:23:40<@OrIdow6>I am glad we are having these discussions even though I am not in the mood to digest a giant IRC log
22:58:55xarph quits [Client Quit]
22:59:08xarph joins
23:04:29@Sanqui quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
23:11:33Dada quits [Remote host closed the connection]
23:17:58Sanqui joins
23:18:02Sanqui quits [Changing host]
23:18:02Sanqui (Sanqui) joins
23:18:02@ChanServ sets mode: +o Sanqui
23:24:56etnguyen03 quits [Client Quit]
23:29:22etnguyen03 (etnguyen03) joins
23:29:28tek_dmn (tek_dmn) joins
23:34:50Juesto (Juest) joins
23:38:17Juest quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
23:38:18Juesto is now known as Juest
23:43:47etnguyen03 quits [Client Quit]
23:57:08wickedplayer494 quits [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
23:57:23wickedplayer494 joins

HomeSearchPrevious dayNext day