Texas SCOPE act takes effect Sunday. How does Lemmy comply?(www.click2houston.com)

posted 3 months ago

FarFarAway@lemmy.world

asklemmy@lemmy.world

155 commentshide report

“The SCOPE Act takes effect this Sunday, Sept. 1, and will require everyone to verify their age for social media.”

So how does this work with Lemmy? Is anyone in Texas just banned, is there some sort of third party ID service lined up…for every instance, lol.

But seriously, how does Lemmy (or the fediverse as a whole) comply? Is there some way it just doesn’t need to?

Sort:

Hot Top Controversial New Old

You are viewing a single thread.

View all comments View context

[ - ]

Maalus@lemmy.world

4 points

3 months ago

They won’t be able to the second someone reports them and a spotlight is put onto them. It does apply. Devs just don’t give a shit and admins are hosting what’s available.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us

3 points

2 months ago

It does apply.
admins are hosting what’s available.

After writing my comment above I realized that lemmy.world (an EU based instance) does in fact comply with the GDPR - their policy is described at https://legal.lemmy.world/privacy-policy/

So it’s possible for fediverse instances to comply with the GDPR. What makes one think it wouldn’t be doable?

They won’t be able to the second someone reports them and a spotlight is put onto them.

I mean, unless they give in and comply with the GDPR.

Devs just don’t give a shit

I guess you are referring to lemmy here. Considering who they are (they run lemmygrad.ml which is defederated from much of the fediverse) this isn’t surprising. But lemmy isn’t the only software on the fediverse - I’d check out piefed.social and mbin for starters.

The other thing is - if you think there’s some software improvement needed to better comply with the GDPR, instead of asking overworked devs who are donating their free time to fix it - why not raise a pull request yourself with the fixes? (Or if you aren’t much in the way of coding ability but have money burning in your pocket, hire someone to do the same and donate the result!)

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

General_Effort@lemmy.world

1 point

2 months ago

So it’s possible for fediverse instances to comply with the GDPR. What makes one think it wouldn’t be doable?

That’s not even remotely enough, even assuming that the information is sufficient.

Mastodon is in a much better place, on account of how federation works there. It might still not be enough. Lemmy instances would have to stop all federation with instances beyond the territorial reach of the GDPR or equivalent. Federation within that territory should only happen based on a contractual agreement between the owners, probably with every user given an explicit choice to opt out.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us

2 points

2 months ago

That’s not even remotely enough, even assuming that the information is sufficient.

What’s not enough? lemmy.world’s privacy policy?

Mastodon is in a much better place, on account of how federation works there. It might still not be enough.

Hmm… what’s the difference?

Lemmy instances would have to stop all federation with instances beyond the territorial reach of the GDPR or equivalent.

Oof. This is indeed a tough one.

I recall that this isn’t universally true - in some cases a country or territory may be deemed as GDPR equivalent and after that data transfer is allowed without additional safeguards, see for example https://www.torkin.com/insights/publication/european-commission-approves-of-canada-s-data-protection-regime-(again)#::text=What%20does%20this%20mean%20for,authorizations%20to%20transfer%20the%20data.

Even so, this does impose significant limits on federation due to the risk of transferring data to non-complying terrotories.

Federation within that territory should only happen based on a contractual agreement between the owners, probably with every user given an explicit choice to opt out.

Uh - if this is right, then this is even more restrictive and seems to suggest a fundamental incompatibility between federation and the GDPR overall.

But, this has got to be an already solved problem. Usenet has been around since the 1980s at least, and NNTP was basically federating before there was ActivityPub. I’m missing something obvious here I’m sure, but what?

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

General_Effort@lemmy.world

1 point

2 months ago

What’s not enough? lemmy.world’s privacy policy?

There’s way more to do than writing a privacy policy. And I don’t think the policy meets the requirements but getting that right certainly needs a specialist.

Hmm… what’s the difference?

On mastodon, you follow a person, which they can refuse. Only then the data is automatically sent to your instance. On lemmy, you subscribe to a community and everyone’s posts and comments are sent to yours. At least, that’s how I understand it.

seems to suggest a fundamental incompatibility between federation and the GDPR overall.

You could say that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the internet and the GDPR, but that’s by design. The internet is about sharing (ie processing) data. The GDPR says, you mustn’t (unless).

Take the “right to be forgotten”. Before the internet, people read their newspapers, threw them away, and forgot about it. The articles were still available in some dusty archive, but you finding them was laborious. With search engines, you could easily find any unflattering press coverage. So you get the right to make search engines remove these links and it’s like back in the good old days. The fact that the GDPR is incompatible with existing technology is a feature, not a bug.

Bear in mind, that few of the people who passed the GDPR have any technical background. Of the people who interpret it - judges and lawyers - fewer still have one. They are not aware of how challenging any of these requirements are.

The main problem for the fediverse is that compliance requires a lot of expert legal knowledge. There’s not just the GDPR but also the DSA and other regulations to follow.

Federation itself may also be problematic, since many more people get to be in control of the data than strictly necessary. The flow of data must be controlled and should be limited as much as possible. That would be much easier with a central authority in charge. But that’s not a deal-breaker.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us

2 points

2 months ago

As GDPR-fans will tell you, data protection is a fundamental human right.

And I completely agree with this. I’m one of those who is a GDPR-fan as well as a fediverse fan.

We don’t let just anyone perform surgery, so don’t expect that just anyone should be able to run a social media site.

So this is the fundamental disagreement I feel. Progress generally entails moving things into the hands of the people. We’re empowered because we can do things like program our own computers, 3-d print our own devices, and yes run our own social media site.

Deny a person that right, and you take a bit of their power away. By running my own single user instance, I make sure that I always own my own content, no one can take it away from me by suddenly shutting down their website (as has happened to e.g. elle.co for example).

As such, my goal here is to figure out how to let ma & pa joe run their own social media site on the fediverse, while staying GDPR compliant.

Of course, the same can be said of surgery but it’s still not allowed. Obviously the harm from letting anyone try it is much worse than strictly regulating it, but is running a social media site on the fediverse likewise so harmful? Is there no way at all to strike the balance?

They need legal experts on the team.

I’ve been thinking about this. You are right of course, but I’d wager that this is outside of what most folks running instances can afford. In particular new devs who want to run their own single user instance.

So what’s the way forward? I have come up with an idea for this. Basically we need to get some organization like the EU branch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to research this and come up with a HOWTO guide that covers most of the average cases - along with pointers on when something is not covered by the guide (so at least you know going in that you’d need to pay for that extra legal firepower).

On mastodon, you follow a person, which they can refuse. Only then the data is automatically sent to your instance. On lemmy, you subscribe to a community and everyone’s posts and comments are sent to yours. At least, that’s how I understand it.

I think you have understood correctly. This actually provided me with the epiphany that I needed. On forum-like software that speaks ActivityPub (like pyfedi or mbin), there’s no actual need to actually transfer the content. Just send me a notification - with the “user” being a bot account named something like “federation_bot_messenger” with a link to the new post or comment, then bubble it up to the user to open in their browser. No content is shared, and no identifiers like a user name get shared, so there’s no risk of a GDPR violation. It’s just a link.

One could imagine that fancier web UIs might use an iframe or something to display the content inplace instead of requiring an extra manual click - but it’s still only on the end user’s browser that the content is transferred.

We could still have traditional federation - but just as you describe, the allow list for that is only for those instances where you know the folks (have contracts you said) and thus are assured that the transfer of content complies with the GDPR. For unknown instances, just do the link sharing. It could be implemented in a way that instances running older software would still see a post by the bot account with just the link inside. (Perhaps as an enhancement, folks could designate a trusted instance as the primary - e.g. my instance trusts lemmy.world as primary, so when it sends the links out, it sends out a lemmy.world link, to take the load off of my own instance from users clicking on links.)

Or am I missing anything here?

Bear in mind, that few of the people who passed the GDPR have any technical background. Of the people who interpret it - judges and lawyers - fewer still have one. They are not aware of how challenging any of these requirements are.

I think this is a bit unfair. Clearly they had technically knowledgable advisors at the very least. After all, they came up with exceptions like this,

here are two exceptions here: “Involuntary data transfer” is generally seen as not being part of the data handling. But that mainly applies to datascrapers like the web archive and similar usage where the data is transfered through general usage of a page that the DC cannot reasonaby prevent without limiting the usage of their service massively.

That said I think I might have been a bit unfair to the lemmy devs. From https://tech.michaelaltfield.net/2024/03/04/lemmy-fediverse-gdpr/ I can see that pretty much all of the issues raised directly on lemmy itself have since been resolved - by a dev writing code to fix the problem. Even if GDPR isn’t the highest priority, the devs are clearly at work trying to address what they can when they can.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

General_Effort@lemmy.world

1 point

2 months ago

Deny a person that right, and you take a bit of their power away. By running my own single user instance, I make sure that I always own my own content, no one can take it away from me by suddenly shutting down their website (as has happened to e.g. elle.co for example).

Hold on. You can’t keep personal data longer than needed. Making data disappear from the web is one important demand by the GDPR.

Comments are problematic because they inherently relate to other persons beside yourself. It could be argued that you have to delete your own writings as well when you shut down your instance. Or it could be argued that other people’s post may be kept (possibly anonymized) because otherwise your personal data would be incomplete. The 2nd is obviously what reddit is doing. That seems to draw more criticism than praise from the lemmy community, to put it mildly.

The GDPR gives you rights over data, like copyright does. It inherently gives you a right to control what other people do on their own with their own physical property.

Of course, the same can be said of surgery but it’s still not allowed. Obviously the harm from letting anyone try it is much worse than strictly regulating it, but is running a social media site on the fediverse likewise so harmful? Is there no way at all to strike the balance?

You don’t need to ask me. The GDPR is a terrible mistake, but that’s not what people want to hear. People don’t know the law and just chose to believe a happy fantasy. I believe, there is no way - at present - that an ordinary person can maintain an internet presence while being compliant with GDPR and other regulations. Mind, you also need to comply with the Digital Services Act and other stuff. With some skill, you can probably do a webpage, even with ads, but nothing where you interact with visitors and must collect data.

Basically we need to get some organization like the EU branch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to research this and come up with a HOWTO guide that covers most of the average cases - along with pointers on when something is not covered by the guide (so at least you know going in that you’d need to pay for that extra legal firepower).

Yes. The DPOs issue guidances and send out newsletters. That would be a place to start. Unfortunately, the different DPOs don’t agree on everything. Maybe in a few years, this will all be at a point where ordinary people can be on the safe side by simply following a manual. The problem is that this will still require extra time and effort. Well, content moderation also requires a lot of time and effort. Maybe it won’t be so much extra effort that it becomes impossible for hobbyists, but - on the whole - the future of the European internet belongs to big players.

We could still have traditional federation - but just as you describe, the allow list for that is only for those instances where you know the folks (have contracts you said) and thus are assured that the transfer of content complies with the GDPR. For unknown instances, just do the link sharing. It could be implemented in a way that instances running older software would still see a post by the bot account with just the link inside. (Perhaps as an enhancement, folks could designate a trusted instance as the primary - e.g. my instance trusts lemmy.world as primary, so when it sends the links out, it sends out a lemmy.world link, to take the load off of my own instance from users clicking on links.)

Or am I missing anything here?

I was thinking the same. Ironically, that is a problem because if there is such an alternative, then it must be used. If you can reach your goal by processing less personal data, then you must do so.

You’d only be hosting the communities created on your own instance. Apart from that, you’d simply authenticate the identities of users. One question is what that would do to server load. I don’t know.

Unfortunately, confirming the identities also means transferring personal data. It would also mean that the remote instance is able to connect an IP-address to a username; potentially allowing the real life identity to be uncovered. Proxying the posts/comments may be the better solution, but when and how that should be done has no clear answer.

Clearly they had technically knowledgable advisors at the very least.

Yes. Those are commonly referred to as industry lobbyists.

“Involuntary data transfer”

I don’t know what exception that is. There are rules for data breaches. I’m not at all sure how much you have to do to block crawlers.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

Texas SCOPE act takes effect Sunday. How does Lemmy comply?(www.click2houston.com)

Ask Lemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.world

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

Partnered Communities:

Community stats

Community moderators