"Even if I only make followers-only posts, which aren't public and can't be boosted, if somebody who's following me replies, any of their followers on Threads will see my account name and instance" and also "If somebody on another instance who follows me boosts one of my public or unlisted posts, people on Threads who are following them may be able to see everything I've said in the post"
Isnt this a core way that ActivityPub works though? Like this isn't a Meta issue. It is the technical functionality of the protocol these federated services are built on. If you transmit data using the AP protocol, your content isnt private.
A lot of the protections in ActivityPub are listed in the spec as "should" not "must". For example edits and deletes.
I think it should be assumed that when you publish content over activitypub it is now public. Any exception that it is private is asinine since you are literally publishing it to other servers.
> Isnt this a core way that ActivityPub works though?
Yep but it counters the "If you don't want your data on Threads, don't use Threads" argument since you can be two hops away from Threads and still have your data appearing on Threads.
"Even if I only make followers-only posts, which aren't public and can't be boosted, if somebody who's following me replies, any of their followers on Threads will see my account name and instance" and also "If somebody on another instance who follows me boosts one of my public or unlisted posts, people on Threads who are following them may be able to see everything I've said in the post"