OP and the person who wrote the article seem surprised. The article author got very upset that it happened, as well as being upset that Dansup fixed the problem and pushed out a new version incorporating the fix within a few days, because that let everyone know it was a problem, which apparently he didn't want to do. Which, of course, he tells a whole story ("I already dreaded what I felt was about to happen." "clicked follow on my partner’s Mastodon account, and… I could see all of her private posts" "'Oh no, not again', I said") about what a huge deal this whole thing is. But he doesn't want users to know about it. And he totally dodges the issue I explained, even when going into a really abundant level of detail about how all the protocol works, about how this is a totally a Mastodon-side-created issue and one that their users should absolutely know about if they are being permitted to create "private" posts.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Eagle-eyed readers will notice you changed your narrative from blaming "a fork of Mastodon" to blaming Mastodon itself, while simultaneously praising Dansup for fixing "their" issue with his software.

You're being nonsensical.

If it's not his bug to fix, and you genuinely believe this (I don't think you're being authentic, but you can prove me wrong): you should be encouraging Dansup to revert his change, not praising him for making it.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sir, we've had complaints from some of the other patrons. Can you just go back to your seat and quiet down?

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Okay, so you are disingenuous.

Instead of being even more of a hypocrite by telling others to quiet down, why don't you delete your copypasta that add nothing to the conversation?

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Hey, that's a really good point. I think I should go back to the ActivityPub spec, look up what is the exact behavior for this kind of thing, go into the Mastodon code, see what it's doing, in what areas its behavior is mandated by the spec and in what areas they were just doing their own implementation, basically make sure I am fully educated on the issue, and then have Claude write up a full comparative analysis in bullet points, with sources so everyone can verify, to make absolutely sure that it can be clearly seen by anyone who wants to take the time to verify, that I'm right about this.

I'll get right on that. It sure would be a waste of time if, instead of that, I just kept repeating over and over and over, what my point of view was. That would be a huge waste of time. I definitely won't do that.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The walls of text you have been spamming seem intentionally designed to convince people you know what you're talking about, so thank you for admitting you don't.

Which narrative are you currently pushing: that it was a bug in a Mastodon fork, or that it was a bug in Mastodon?

Or is your opinion simply based on needing to blame anybody but Pixelfed for their fuckup

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Lol

I'm happy with what I've posted so far. Part of the reason I engage in this stuff in the first place is that it is useful to learn things by having people assert them to me or challenge other things I am saying, and then I can go and look up what the actual truth is, see what other people say, go back and forth about it a little bit.

You and me have long since passed the point where it's productive, though, on this topic. I wish you the best.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

For someone who claims to care about the truth, kind of funny you lied about leaving. Try to keep up with your promise and don't lie again!