@movq@www.uninformativ.de That’s kind a problem though right?

@david@collantes.us 🤣🤣🤣

I just realized the other big property you lose is:

What if someone completely changes the content of the root of the thread?

Does the Subject reference the feed and timestamp only or the intent too?

@prologic@twtxt.net “Even though there are some 😉 that have different views on this 🤣” — coyly raises the hand… LOL.

@bender@twtxt.net Yeah I’ll be honest here; I’m not going to be very happy if we go down this “location addressing” route;

• Twt Subjects lose their meaning.
  
• Twt Subjects cannot be verified without looking up the feed.
  
  • Which may or may not exist anymore or may change.
    
• Two persons cannot reply to a Twt independently of each other anymore.
  

and probably some other properties we’d stand to lose that I’m forgetting about…

I like the (replyto:...) as well. If the feed changes, well, it is the same as changing emails (and deleting the old one). No?

@movq@www.uninformativ.de One of the biggest reasons I don’t like the (replyto:…) proposal (location addressing vs. content addressing) is that you just introduce a similar problem down the track, albeit rarer where if a feed changes its location, your thread’s “identifiers” are no longer valid, unless those feed authors maintain strict URL redirects, etc. This potentially has the long-term effect of being rather fragile, as opposed to what we have now where an Edit just really causes a natural fork in the thread, which is how “forking” works in the first place.

I realise this is a bit pret here, and it probably doesn’t matter a whole lot at our size. But I’m trying to think way ahead, to a point where Twtxt as a “thing” can continue to work and function decades from now, even with the extensions we’ve built. We’ve already proven for example that Twts and threads from ~4 years ago still work and are easily looked up haha 😝

Want to find something to do this #SoftwareFreedomDay without leaving home?

Check out this #CaptureTheFlag created to celebrate the day!

https://sfdctf24.ctfd.io/

I just read the primary spec I’m strongly in support of and it’s pretty rock solid for me 👌 💯

Falta 1 hora para o encontro do #SoftwareFreedomDay Português começar, e a caixa de autocolantes já está preparada para vos receber.

Já estão a caminho?

https://ciberlandia.pt/@marado/113175521545120134

Image

Today is #SoftwareFreedomDay!

Did you know that by showing up to #SFD you make yourself eligible to participate in a drawing contest and win cool hardware?

Join us!

https://digitalfreedoms.org/en/sfd/blog/art-for-digital-freedom-huion-challenge-2024

Do you recall what it was? I blame my maintenance window 🪟

@bender@twtxt.net Hmm what you replied to appears to be non-existent: https://twtxt.net/twt/pqst4ea

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I just saw thes come through! 🙏 Thank you very much, I’ll definitely have a read tomorrow! 👌

@movq@www.uninformativ.de good job!

Something’s broken.

@prologic@twtxt.net the one I relied to. It vanished now.

@bender@twtxt.net Which reply was that? 🤔

@bender@twtxt.net Bahahahahaha 🤣

@prologic@twtxt.net where is the parent on your reply? 🧐🤔😅

@prologic@twtxt.net right, because it was deleted, and purged from cache, of course! Good try, mister, you are in trouble. Call the Yarn Police! 😂

Ever wondered what it would cost to self-hosted vs. use the cloud? Well I often doubt myself every time I look at hardware prices, and I know I have to do some hardware refresh soon™ for the Mills DC (something I don’t have a regular plan or budget for), here’s a rough ball park:

The Mills DC has cost me around ~$15k to build and maintain over the last ~10 years or so. Roughly speaking. I’ve never actually taken a Bill of Materials or anything, but I could if anyone is interested in more specifics.

The equivalent of resources if run in the “Cloud” would cost around:

• ~$1,000 for virtual machines
  
• ~$12000 for storage
  

So around ~$2,000/month to run.

Keep this in mind anytime anyone ever tries to con you into believing “Cloud is cheaper”. It’s not.

O programa para celebrar o #softwarefreedomday hoje em Lamego começa com um encontro às 16h, mas arrasta-se até à noite.

Aparece!

Mais detalhes: https://ansol.org/eventos/2024-09-21-dia-do-software-livre/

@ansol@ansol https://floss.social/@ansol/113175444432510981

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com This is one of the reasons why yarnd has a couple of settings with some sensible/sane defaults:

I could already imagine a couple of extreme cases where, somewhere, in this peaceful world one’s exercise of freedom of speech could get them in Real trouble (if not danger) if found out, it wouldn’t necessarily have to involve something to do with Law or legal authorities. So, If someone asks, and maybe fearing fearing for… let’s just say ‘Their well being’, would it heart if a pod just purged their content if it’s serving it publicly (maybe relay the info to other pods) and call it a day? It doesn’t have to be about some law/convention somewhere … 🤷 I know! Too extreme, but I’ve seen news of people who’d gone to jail or got their lives ruined for as little as a silly joke. And it doesn’t even have to be about any of this.

There are two settings:

$ ./yarnd --help 2>&1 | grep max-cache
      --max-cache-fetchers int        set maximum numnber of fetchers to use for feed cache updates (default 10)
  -I, --max-cache-items int           maximum cache items (per feed source) of cached twts in memory (default 150)
  -C, --max-cache-ttl duration        maximum cache ttl (time-to-live) of cached twts in memory (default 336h0m0s)

So yarnd pods by default are designed to only keep Twts around publicly visible on either the anonymous Frontpage or Discover View or your Timeline or the feed’s Timeline for up to 2 weeks with a maximum of 150 items, whichever get exceeded first. Any Twts over this are considered “old” and drop off the active cache.

It’s a feature that my old man @off_grid_living@twtxt.net was very strongly in support of, as was I back in the day of yarnd’s design (nothing particularly to do with Twtxt per se) that I’ve to this day stuck by – Even though there are some 😉 that have different views on this 🤣

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com Thanks for this! 🙏

@movq@www.uninformativ.de @falsifian@www.falsifian.org @prologic@twtxt.net Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about and You’ve probably already read this: Everything you need to know about the “Right to be forgotten” coming straight out of the EU’s GDPR Website itself. It outlines the specific circumstances under which the right to be forgotten applies as well as reasons that trump the one’s right to erasure …etc.

I’m no lawyer, but my uneducated guess would be that:

A) twts are already publicly available/public knowledge and such… just don’t process children’s personal data and MAYBE you’re good? Since there’s this:

… an organization’s right to process someone’s data might override their right to be forgotten. Here are the reasons cited in the GDPR that trump the right to erasure:

• The data is being used to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information.
  
• The data is being used to perform a task that is being carried out in the public interest or when exercising an organization’s official authority.
  
• The data represents important information that serves the public interest, scientific research, historical research, or statistical purposes and where erasure of the data would likely to impair or halt progress towards the achievement that was the goal of the processing.
  

B) What I love about the TWTXT sphere is it’s Human/Humane element! No deceptive algorithms, no Corpo B.S …etc. Just Humans. So maybe … If we thought about it in this way, it wouldn’t heart to be even nicer to others/offering strangers an even safer space.
I could already imagine a couple of extreme cases where, somewhere, in this peaceful world one’s exercise of freedom of speech could get them in Real trouble (if not danger) if found out, it wouldn’t necessarily have to involve something to do with Law or legal authorities. So, If someone asks, and maybe fearing fearing for… let’s just say ‘Their well being’, would it heart if a pod just purged their content if it’s serving it publicly (maybe relay the info to other pods) and call it a day? It doesn’t have to be about some law/convention somewhere … 🤷 I know! Too extreme, but I’ve seen news of people who’d gone to jail or got their lives ruined for as little as a silly joke. And it doesn’t even have to be about any of this.

P.S: Maybe make X tool check out robots.txt? Or maybe make long-term archives Opt-in? Opt-out?
P.P.S: Already Way too many MAYBE’s in a single twt! So I’ll just shut up. 😅

[47°09′34″S, 126°43′38″W] Dosimeter still failing

I like Gopher!

Bahahahaha very clever @lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I look forward to reading your report ! 🤣 However…

$ yarnc debug https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt | grep -E '^pqst4ea' | tee | wc -l
0

I very quickly proved that Twt was never from me 🤣

We’re happy to report that @burglar@yarnd.lyse.isobeef.org was taken into custody, @prologic@twtxt.net. Always remember, criminals cannot escape the law.

Our investigations revealed: https://lyse.isobeef.org/tmp/twtinjector.tar.bz2

@yarn_police@twtxt.net Cool cool 🙇‍♂️

Fear not, @prologic@twtxt.net, we’re deploying our helicopter and will arrive shortly.

[47°09′18″S, 126°43′39″W] Transfer aborted

@yarn_police@twtxt.net What’s going on?

Heads up, @prologic@twtxt.net! We’re seeing increased spate of burglaries in your neighbourhood. Please stay alert, while we keep you safe out there.

[47°09′43″S, 126°43′04″W] Bad satellite signal – switching to analog communication

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Yes that’s true they are only integrity checks. But beyond a malicious pod (ignore yarnd’a gossiping protocol for now) how does what @lyse@lyse.isobeef.org presented work exactly? 😅

But this is no different to how jenny does things with storing every Twt in a Maildir I suppose? 🤔

This has specifically come up before in the form of “informal complaints” against yarnd because of the way it permanently stores and archives Twts, so even if you decide you changed your mind, or deleted that line out of your feed, if my pod or @xuu@txt.sour.is or @abucci@anthony.buc.ci or @eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club (or any other handful of pods still around?) saw the Twt, it’d be permanently archived.

Yeah I’m curious to find out too beyond just “here say”. But regardless of whether we should or shouldn’t care about this or should or shouldn’t comply. We should IMO. I’d have to build something that horrendously violates someone’s rights in another country.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Care to explain how this explicit/attack works for me? 🤣

Well that was bloody awful. This PR bokr my pod for some strange reason I can’t figure out why or how 😱 The process just kept getting terminated from something, somewhere (no panic). weird. I’ve reverted this PR for now @xuu@txt.sour.is

@prologic@twtxt.net I have no specifics, only hopes. (I have seen some articles explaining the GDPR doesn’t apply to a “purely personal or household activity” but I don’t really know what that means.)

I don’t know if it’s worth giving much thought to the issue unless either you expect to get big enough for the GDPR to matter a lot (I imagine making money is a prerequisite) or someone specifically brings it up. Unless you enjoy thinking through this sort of thing, of course.

Really though I only managed to save a few GB, but it’s enough for now.

@bender@twtxt.net Haha 😛 Faster? Maybe 🤔 But yeah it’s good to have backups! (that work)

I’ve also put up this PR Add compatible methods for Index to behave as the Archiver (transition) #1177
that will act as a transition from the old naive archiver to the new bluge-based search/index. I will switch my pod over to this soon to test it before anyone else does.

For those curious, the archive on this pod had reached around ~22GB in size. I had to suck it down to my more powerful Mac Studio to clean it up and remove a bunch of junk. Then copy all the data back. This is what my local network traffic looked like for the last few hours 😱

@prologic@twtxt.net woot, woot! Glad everything went well. I feel it faster already!

And we’re back. Sorry about that 😅

Gotta unplug for a couple of minutes. I’m suspecting the extension cord to be the root of my monitor dead rows of pixels and flickering problems.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Hmmm I’m not sure sure I get what you’re getting at here. In order for this to be true, yarnd would have to be maliciously fabricating a Twt with the Hash D.

i.e: there must be two versions of the Twt in the feed.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org This is true. But the client MUST supply the original too! Or this doesn’t work 😢

00:00 local time - Happy #SoftwareFreedomDay!

Here’s a map of all the events that are going to happen worldwide. In which are you going to participate?

@dff@dff https://fosstodon.org/@dff/113170848636203522

https://spiritualsprings.proboards.com/thread/46/flat-earth-round-explorer

Have a nice weekend everyone

The monthly reading tag for #September is #school, and I thought I would be reading fiction for it. But fate decided that the book in the picture would be released this month, so here am I fulfilling the thread by reading a non-fiction book about the high-school I attended to, a book I participate with along others that help form a collective memory spanning five decades - I am the youngest participant, having graduated from this high-school in 1999.

#fridayreads #bookstodon

Image

If OTOH your client doesn’t store individual Twts in a cache/archive or some kind of database, then verification becomes quite hard and tedious. However I think of this as an implementation details. The spec should just call out that clients must validate/verify the edit request and the matching hash actually exists in that feed, not how the client should implement that.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Yes you do. You keep both versions in your cache. They have different hashes. So you have Twt A, a client indicates Twt B is an edit of A, your client has already seen A and cached and archived it, now your client fetches B which is indicated of editing A. You cache/archive B as well, but now indicate in your display that B replaces A (maybe display, link both) or just display B or whatever. But essentially you now have both, but an indicator of one being an edit of the other.

The right thing to do here of course is to keep A in the “thread” but display B. Why? So the thread/chain doesn’t actually break or fork (forking is a natural consequence of editing, or is it the other way around? 🤔).

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I’m all for dropping delete btw, Or at least not making it mandatory, as-in “clients should” rather than “clients must”. But yes I agree, let’s explore all the possible ways this can be exploited (if at all).

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I think not.

What about edits of edits? Do we want to “chain” edits or does the latest edit simply win?

This gets too complicated if we start to support this kind of nonsense 🤣

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Thank you! 🙏

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Walk me through this? 🤔 I get what you’re saying, but I’m too stupid to be a “hacker” 🤣

But yes, at the end of the day if the edit request is invalid or cannot be verified, it should be ignored as treated as “malicious”.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org @movq@www.uninformativ.de So a client that has the idea of a cache/archive wouldn’t necessarily have to re-check that the Twt being marked as “edited” belongs to that feed or not, the client would already know that for sure. At least this is how yarnd works and I’m sure jenny can make similar assertions too.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org @falsifian@www.falsifian.org Contributions to search.twtxt.net, which runs yarns (not to be confused with yarnd) are always welcome 🤗 – I don’t have as much “spare time” as I used to due to the nature of my job (Staff Engineer); but I try to make improvements every now and again 💪

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org You make good points though, I made similar arguments about this too back in the day. Twtxt v2 / Yarn.social being at least ~4 years old now 😅

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org Do you have specifics about the GRPD law about this?

Would the GDPR would apply to a one-person client like jenny? I seriously hope not. If someone asks me to delete an email they sent me, I don’t think I have to honour that request, no matter how European they are.

I’m not sure myself now. So let’s find out whether parts of the GDPR actually apply to a truly decentralised system? 🤔

LOL 😂 This:

anyone could claim that some feed contained a certain message which was then removed again by just creating the hash over the fake message in said feed and invented timestamp themselves

I’d like to see a step-by-step reproduction of this. I don’t buy it 🤣

Admittedly yarnd had a few implementation security bugs, but I’m not sure this is actually possible, unless I’m missing something? 🤔

@david@collantes.us Very nice! 👍

And they have arrived (well, they did around 3 hours ago, LOL). Buttery smooth, my 16 Pro (one with dark cover). It took a bit over an hour to transfer all my data.

Image

[47°09′46″S, 126°43′09″W] Not enough data – sampling finished

Ah, and now he is “conveniently” sleeping. How, well, convenient! LOL.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org yeah, tell us, @prologic@twtxt.net, what isn’t true? 🤔 You can’t just go around, “that’s not true, and that’s not true; and that, and that!” without spelling out exactly what isn’t, and why? For the love of god, why?! 😂

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org comments on the feeds as in nick, url, follow, that kind of thing? If that, then not interested at all. I envision an archive that would allow searching, and potentially browsing threads on a nice, neat interface. You will have to think, though, on other things. Like, what to do with images? Yarn allows users to upload images, but also embed it in twtxts from other sources (hotlinking, actually).

@david@collantes.us Thanks, that’s good feedback to have. I wonder to what extent this already exists in registry servers and yarn pods. I haven’t really tried digging into the past in either one.

How interested would you be in changes in metadata and other comments in the feeds? I’m thinking of just permanently saving every version of each twtxt file that gets pulled, not just the twts. It wouldn’t be hard to do (though presenting the information in a sensible way is another matter). Compression should make storage a non-issue unless someone does something weird with their feed like shuffle the comments around every time I fetch it.

I ended up installing Headscale on my little VPS. Just in case the collide, I turned off WireGuard. Turning that one off (which ran on a container) also frees some memory. Headscale is running quite well! Indeed, I have struggled getting any web management console to work, but it really isn’t needed. Everything needed to commandeer the server is available through the CLI.

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org “I was actually thinking about making an Internet Archive style twtxt archiver, letting you explore past twts” — that’s an awesome idea for a project. Something I would certainly use!

[47°09′51″S, 126°43′39″W] Taking samples

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I don’t think it has to be like that. Just make sure the new version of the twt is always appended to your current feed, and have some convention for indicating it’s an edit and which twt it supersedes. Keep the original twt as-is (or delete it if you don’t want new followers to see it); doesn’t matter if it’s archived because you aren’t changing that copy.

@prologic@twtxt.net Do you have a link to some past discussion?

Would the GDPR would apply to a one-person client like jenny? I seriously hope not. If someone asks me to delete an email they sent me, I don’t think I have to honour that request, no matter how European they are.

I am really bothered by the idea that someone could force me to delete my private, personal record of my interactions with them. Would I have to delete my journal entries about them too if they asked?

Maybe a public-facing client like yarnd needs to consider this, but that also bothers me. I was actually thinking about making an Internet Archive style twtxt archiver, letting you explore past twts, including long-dead feeds, see edit histories, deleted twts, etc.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Ok 😅

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Hmmm not sure what I was thinking sorry 🤦‍♂️been a long day 😂

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Am I missing something? 😅

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Precisely 👌

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Is t it? You read each Twt and compute its hash. It’s a simple O(1) lookup of the hash in that feed or your cache/archive right?

@prologic@twtxt.net what time in UTC?

@prologic@twtxt.net cool, I will be there! Are you going to post the regular banner notice? It will serve as a reminder, at least for me.

[47°09′46″S, 126°43′19″W] Raw reading: 0x66ED55B1, offset +/-5

AWESOME COOL ☻

👋 Reminder that next Saturday 28th September will be out monthly online meetup! Hope to see some/all of you there 👌

[47°09′20″S, 126°43′08″W] –interrupted–

[47°09′57″S, 126°43′00″W] –no signal–

I’ll try to reproduce locally later tonight

i kinda click a yarn then a fork and the back button. i have to do a few goes before it does it.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I don’t think this is true.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org No that’s never a problem because we really only want to “navigate” the web anyway not form threads of xonversation 🤣

@movq@www.uninformativ.de this approach also wouldn’t work and when that Feed gets archived so you’ll be forced to crawl archived feeds at that point.

The important bits missing from this summary (devil is in the details) are two requirements:

• Clients should order Twts by their timestamp.
  
• Clients must validate all edit and delete requests that the hash being indicated belongs to and came from that feed.
  
• Client should honour delete requests and delete Twts from their cache/archive.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org This is why hashes provide that level of integrity. The hash can be verified in the cache or archive as belonging to said feed.