Comment by @paulburke • Hey
*"For me the definition of owning is being able to restrict access if needed"*
This is a narrow definition of "own". Ownership is mostly about proof of po
Comments
- I think setting proof of possession equal to „owning“ something is a much narrower definition. If you have a car that belongs to you on paper, but everyone can drive it and use it without your consent and you can’t do anything about it, then you don’t own the car.
Yes, content can’t be censored on lens which is great against totalitarian regimes. However if the few popular Frontend clients decide to hide your content, it results in a form of soft censorship.
„_I can choose to host my own Lens metadata on a private server and simple delete it whenever I want. _„
Simple delete? We both know that the average user is neither capable nor interested in setting up a private server, just so they can delete their content.
And again yes, Lens does let you control who interacts with your content to some degree, but so do other social media platforms. And on Lens, even if you block someone, they can still see everything you post.
The main issue I have with Lens' marketing about "owning your data" is that it's misleading. Most users don't realize that their deleted content can still be seen by others and that they have more data control with traditional social media, because there data privacy can be enforced by law.
Saying that you own all your data without making these downsides clear isn't the full story.