@smallcircles@social.coop thank you, glad im not alone in thinking that "other person can delete my chatlogs" is awful. i should be able to opt out, possibly with a big red "this user does not accept delete requests" notice.
Post
Replies:
4
Boosts:
4
@nycki @smallcircles the mastodon quote fep mentions that a server is allowed to transform rejecting a quote authorization into deleting the entire post (as in, if someone quotes you, you can tell their server to delete their entire post, including their own words, from their own server). this is explicitly described as an acceptable and conformant behavior. not sure why gargron is allowed to write FEPs since he certainly never implements them himself
@nycki @smallcircles i have more abstract qualms with the notion of consent that FEP invokes (and why gargron's notion of consent is distinct from user safety, or any of the existing discussions about consent) but i think you have identified a really important framing here that consent to deletion is a form of consent that is absolutely right to require here.
in https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/116543061887456848 i mentioned "two-party consent" to record in US state law which i feel is framed in a way that obfuscates the consent mechanism you identity here
@nycki @smallcircles i say "absolutely right to require" in an informal sense, to mean "i personally believe the power of remote deletion requires either (a) mutual user consent to delete or (b) moderator intervention in response to abuse + a contextual theory of harm which is alleviated by deletion".
case (b) does not propose a new power but attempts to codify the expectations of the current status quo, while enabling specific elevated permissions for admins/moderators upon satisfying certain conditions
@nycki @smallcircles i am really interested in codifying guarantees like this with cryptographic identity to produce documents attesting to the exercise of elevated permissions & justification for same, because that produces a verifiable log of actions that can be cross-referenced against others (which you'll note is exactly the purpose of making an independent recording of e.g. a phone call). this is something i'm currently working to formalize for package repositories, since git actively obscures decision-making by generating diffs on demand and enables backdating commits while failing to keep track of when an object was first made visible by a remote
