IMPORTANT. Threads stated policy is to collect and exploit Fediverse user personal data without explicit consent.
Now is a very good time to review Threads Terms of Use (https://terms.threads.com/terms-of-use) and Supplemental Privacy Policy (https://help.instagram.com/515230437301944).
Note just by following a Threads user or replying to a post, Meta claims they are entitled to your personal data.
And what do they say they will do with your data? Provide you with "business services (including ads)."
Terms of Use
PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR USE OF AND ACCESS TO OUR SERVICES (DEFINED BELOW) ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS; IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, YOU MAY NOT USE OR ACCESS THREADS IN ANY MANNER.Terms of Use
Eugen Rochko
in reply to Mastodon Migration • • •John Francis
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Mastodon Migration
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •@Gargron Yes, but this does not address the issue. The concern expressed here is the use of this identity data, as well as Mastodon user content and interactions, for the purpose of Threads broader business services, including ads.
As described in the document Supplemental Privacy Policy: https://help.instagram.com/515230437301944
#threads #DataPrivacy
Help Center
help.instagram.comEugen Rochko
in reply to Mastodon Migration • • •rexum
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Eugen Rochko
in reply to rexum • • •rexum
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Eugen Rochko
in reply to rexum • • •rexum
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Eugen Rochko
in reply to rexum • • •Mastodon Migration
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •@Gargron @rexum
Think that the focus on ads misses the point. The primary issue is not the display of ads, but rather the collection and analysis of Fediverse user personal data and content, and the use of it for profiling the user. The concern is that such data is taken from the Fediverse and is used to fill out Meta's profile of the user and then exploited for whatever purpose, including but not at all limited to ads.
Eugen Rochko
in reply to Mastodon Migration • • •Mastodon Migration
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Kurt
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Mastodon Migration
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •@Gargron
Please see the conversation below and the clarifications above.
It seems that Threads has two versions of their Supplemental Privacy Policy. The EU version does not raise concerns, but the US version does. Further, the fact there are two different versions, confirms that the matter is a real concern.
Raising this issue is not "against" Threads integration. Lots of good can come from big players joining distributed social media, but only if we can protect our data privacy rights.
Thomas Lee ✅ :patreon:
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Clayton Slaughter
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Sure they can. Remember the email services that append ads to emails?
I don’t understand the business plan of Threads, other than acquiring user data to resell. Letting users take their followers and content is a tell that it isn’t about walling in threads with a moat. Rather maybe to expand Threads moat to the entire Fediverse?
It’s very puzzling.
Thank you for your work and insights.
Dale Reardon
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Mastodon Migration
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •@Gargron The bigger concern would be that a Fediverse user might start getting ads on other platforms about honey, just because they follow someone on Threads and also follow beekeepers.ninja or simply post on Mastodon about bees.
But this is not just about ads. It is about data privacy and what Meta claims authority to do with data and content pulled from the Fediverse.
Eugen Rochko
in reply to Mastodon Migration • • •Unknowable@troet.cafe
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Pieselpriemel
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Michael Fisher
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •@Gargron I think the question is whether Threads would use the APub integration to scrape the beekeepers.ninja user’s social graph, posts, etc there and then do God knows what with it. That’s the fear.
The reality, I believe, is that they can already do that (and if Meta is being Meta, they already are) using existing Mastodon web services and APIs…so refusing ActivityPub-based direct federation with them wouldn’t prevent much.
The Nexus of Privacy
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •While it's true that every well-written social network pricacy policy does cover this kind of data, no it's not at all "absolutely the same thing".
Compare and contrast what Threads' privacy policy says they can do with this data to a privacy policy like @admin's and it's clear that Threads' privacy policy tries to give the company as much ability to use data without requesting additional consent (although EU DPC's may have something to say about it). Also, unlike every Mastodon server out there, Meta's business model relies on exploiting people's data -- and they have a long track record of using data without consent. It really isn't the same thing at all.
https://eupolicy.social/privacy-policy
Also you suggested elsewhere in this thread that "Personal data usually carries a slightly different meaning than a public profile and posts you choose to broadcast to the open web." In the EU, GDPR is very explicit that personal data includes publicly available data such as this.
@mastodonmigration @rexum
EUpolicy.social - A Mastodon server for the EU bubble
Mastodon hosted on eupolicy.socialівась тарасик
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •@Gargron the difference is: fediverse instances belong (mostly) to communities, whereas f ones belong to a corporation. are you ignoring that fact on purpose?
@mastodonmigration