@tomas :(
@kdfrawg sorry. When I said it seemed so outlandish to me, I meant I was matching that outlandishness with outlandish suggestions.
My impression has been that most people torrent illegally, and many don't have an issue with it. I didn't think you would take it as an offense literally or hyperbolically.
@larand I'm neither saying anything about distributed systems being unable to do that -- but mastodon has issues with it.
@larand You can't realistically prevent something online from being copied. But you can control the canonical source, and I think that's important.
@larand Someone can make copies of my tweet in a bunch of places. If I'm trying to cover something up, that's a problem.
If I just want to delete my tweet, though, I can do that. On Mastodon, this is a lot more complicated.
@hybotics @phoneboy @sumudu @larand @indigo
I'm surprised all of you take such a harsh stance on ownership and control, considering your use of 10C. Maybe our work is arbitrary, and it really is only the community that matters. :D
I think it's a downright shame to think ownership and control are the same thing, and so abandon ownership because there's no practical control over online content. It is simplistic to say that because you cannot prevent someone from copying something, you cannot control it, nor own it. You do own it, and you should be able to control your own copy, at least! (that is where this originally came from: not being able to control your very own copy of your data on a mastodon instance.)
Do you all torrent illegal content, as well? Do you think we shouldn't pay for social networks? When you post something illegal onto a distributed platform, do you think you won't be held responsible if it doesn't go to an instance you own and control? I'm casting a wide net here, because this seems so outlandish to me.