Hacker News Reader

Comment by amiga386 | Hacker News Reader

Even if you do that, you're still - legally speaking - liable for hosting all those federated messages.

IANAL, but my understanding is the most effective way to run your own server is to have it completely hidden, e.g. behind classic HTTP authentication so that nobody but you can even see it's a Mastodon server, and definitely can't see anything the server is ingesting, without first logging in.

Even then, if you're a resident of California, your server "collects and maintains personally identifiable information from a consumer residing in California who uses or visits" so you need a privacy policy for yourself, legally speaking. See how much work it is to be legally compliant with laws that never really considered your use-case but apply to you anyway?

View on HN

> liable for hosting all those federated messages.

Mastodon do not permanently stores these messages. They are cached, and evicted after some time. I linked to a video some time ago, and now that link is unreachable because it's expired.

The URL contained "/cache/", and I didn't understand what it meant until my video died.

That's true, but while they're cached, if someone else could see them, they're hosted, and you're liable for hosting them.

I understand that Mastodon has a "local feed", and even if you're its sole user, if you don't block anonymous readers from access, that means someone could technically see a message by someone else that you're subscribed to, take umbrage at it, and sue you for making it available on your server, even temporarily.

From what I've seen of Mastodon, it does seem possible to block access to the server's local feed, but I don't know that for sure.

In addition to the local feed, there's also what you personally boost. I'm not sure how one strikes a balance, and if the software is still usable, if you were to hide the main URL for your feed (at least, the URL so that visitors from the web can read your feed on your server). Would it still be possible to participate in conversations, would people still be able to subscribe to you?

> Would it still be possible to participate in conversations, would people still be able to subscribe to you?

Yes. I follow several remote users who default to "unlisted" posts. (To be honest, I don't know if they're unlisted or follower-only posts -- I can't tell.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com