@tshirtman Who don't care?

@evan indexing machines.

@tshirtman How much do you know about Fediverse content search engines? I don't think that's a fair assertion.

@tshirtman I'd suggest https://discover.holos.social/how-it-works as an example of Fediverse-friendly search engines.

@evan i didn't understand this question to be about fediverse-sanctionned search engines (if that's even something we can get people to agree on), but about search engines in general, i understand the want for privacy for many people there, i just don't think it's something we can promise them, everything here is public. Some search engines will try to cater to the spirit of this plact, yes, but "can" and "will" are different things.

@smallcircles So you click a checkbox that says "include public posts in search results", and somehow it knows that only DDG is allowed to index your posts? How?

@smallcircles And what about the 40,000 Fediverse servers that index your posts now?

@smallcircles I'm finding this conversation frustrating because I know that you have some interesting ideas about configuring remote services from your account, and your reply doesn't reflect those ideas for me. I wish I could understand your thoughts better.

Thanks to everyone who responded to the poll.

It seems like there's a common expectation that enabling "indexable" makes your content available for indexing without additional opt-in to a specific server. This is how Mastodon and other Fediverse servers treat the flag; if you've got the indexable flag set, your public content is indexed for full-text search. (Even if the indexable flag is not set, if you use a hashtag in your post, it's indexed for hashtag search.)

IANAL, TINLA, BTW.

I think search engines, including Mastodon search, should also include an opt-out for their specific engine. You should be able to have an "every search engine except these ones" policy. That can be implemented with blocks, maybe, or could happen by logging into the search engine interface and switching on a "don't index me" checkbox.

A small minority of people seem to think that setting the indexable flag on your account doesn't enable search by any remote server -- you have to intentionally opt into each server, one by one. That's not how Mastodon treats it; it seems like a mistaken apprehension at this point.

Setting the indexable flag, and using blocks or opt-out signals, is a "denylist" permission structure; "everyone except these enumerated servers".

I don't think we have a good mechanism for an "allowlist" structure; "only these enumerated servers". If I were making a search engine, I'd have a way for someone to opt in manually, even if their "indexable" flag was missing or false.

Anyways, my answer is "All except those you opted out of".

@evan
Hello brother, I hope you have a good day. Could you please help me, even with something small? I've been pleading with you for my daughters for a long time. Please don't ignore me today; you are my only hope. 🫂

@smallcircles I'm asking how people think it works. However, it is a signal of intent by the actor, so as with most communications actions, it doesn't have an intrinsic meaning; it means what we want it to mean.

I think it's probably fair for other search engines to follow Mastodon's lead on this, though -- if I make communications action X and its result is Y, my future use of that communications action will be intended to have the same result.

@evan oh, I'm sorry.

Don't really have those ideas, but it occurred to me that this Indexable functionality sits right at the heart of that tension point for fediverse developers on what is okay to do with public data and what is not, and where there's often controversy and heated debate.

Indexable is at the same time a honest attempt to communicate something complex to people on how the network functions. And it is a horror UX as it fails to do so. Now its presence means it has become part of that public data, open to misinterpretation, expectation mismatch, building further on something vague.

I think there's nothing in the technology itself that prevents fediverse from becoming just as bad as social media elsewhere already is. The only thing that prevents enshittification in the long term is having those uncomfortable discussions.

In other words socio-cultural aspects and subsequent pressures on technology direction are key to success or failure of fediverse in the long term.