Dear server admins, please defederate threads.net. Dear users, ask your server admin to defederate threads.net.
Meta just announced that they are trying to integrate Threads with ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, etc.). We need to defederate them if we want to avoid them pushing their crap into fediverse.
If you’re a server admin, please defederate Meta’s domain “threads.net”
If you don’t run your own server, please ask your server admin to defederate “threads.net”.
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
Wtf does EEE mean, why must people assume everyone knows every acronym
This was being discussed actively months ago. People would say the full embrace, extend… then, but now there’s a somewhat fair assumption that most who are actually on Lemmy might have the reference by now.
All you have to do is say, "what does EEE mean? " without the second half of your statement - no need to get angry.
The point of the second half is to try to dissuade others from simply relying on initialisms. It causes introspection. Maybe accusing others of being angry is uncalled for? It’s possible to want to prompt introspection in others without being angry.
The problem is you come across as a demanding jackass and will likely receive a “fuck you” in response rather than the modified behaviour you think you’re engendering.
Using initialisms prompt self learning for those that will, and wilful ignorance for those that will not. No one is responsible for anyone elses individual lack of capacity. Funny how your situation only encourages introspection in one half of the conversation.
What is the point of ever asking a question on the Internet if it should always just be met with “do your own research”? For the record, I did Google around and I couldn’t find that Wikipedia article, and when I did see it in another comment, I didn’t still understand the concept. This comes across as incredibly gatekeeper-y. Don’t understand why I’m not “allowed” into the conversation because I’m being barred from context because I don’t understand an initialism and my research failed.
You are allowed, just ask what it means. Don’t be a whiney little bitch that people aren’t hand feeding you every scrap of information, nobody is cognizant of your ignorance so don’t blame yours on them.
I don’t believe the people saying “just wait and see” are genuine users. I have a hard time fathoming that after Meta’s atrocious history, as well as the history of what happens when large corporations get involved – I simply can’t believe these are more than paid shill accounts.
Or maybe I’m the one who’s naive, thinking that people can’t possibly be so foolish…
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupitiy, and I’m not so sure about the universe.” - attributed to Albert Einstein
Sadly you are naive. People truly are that foolish.
Sometimes it brings me fleeting moments of doomerism, where I think maybe it will be good when we humans are gone
deleted by creator
DECADES long? Facebook didn’t even exist 2 decades ago bud. We know they’re shit but you don’t need to go around exaggerating everything and being so dramatic.
deleted by creator
Textbook FUD.
You’d be a moron to trust them obv, but how would Threads using ActivityPub extingush the Fediverse?
deleted by creator
Right, I’ve also yet to see what defederating from a hypthetical Threads instance could prevent.
They’re a really good open source contributor with a great track record, I know people don’t like saying good stuff about zuck related things but they’ve helped progress machine learning quite a bit. Pytourch is a great example iirc used in stable diffusion
Yeah dude let’s just federate with an instance maintained by a corporation that has undoubtedly caused a genocide in Myanmar by turning a blind eye to a far-right hate speech group that caused an entire fucking minority to flee into another country.
I don’t get why people are supporting and saying “oh it must be up to the user” like bro this is the company we’re dealing with. Fuck that fuck threads fuck zuckerberg i don’t want his shit cancer near something that’s going well so far.
If they want to hang out with us, they can make an account somewhere other than thread, bam, done!
If they want to hang out with us, they can make an account somewhere other than thread, bam, done!
“make another account somewhere” isn’t really what federation is about.
What do you think it’s about? Because from my perspective changing instances is kind of the entire defining feature that separates it from commercial platforms.
It’s about connecting communities and having fail saves, not bullying.
Indeed it is, they’re not saying you have to make an account on that person’s server, they’re saying that you can make it on a different server, that’s the point of federation you can join other servers that are connected to them. It’s not to be fully open without any limitations, because if it were then content moderation would be impossible.
Services like Nostr have this problem, they are like the wild West where anything goes and you can’t do anything about it. To some people that seems great but the fact of the matter is those services are filled with right-wing trolls and crypto scammers (likely plenty of other nasty stuff as well) because they cannot be moderated.
Mastodon, Kbin, the new Lemmy 0.19 release allow on a per user basis to block entire domains, so I don’t see how this is a “you can’t do anything about it” situation. Just let users decide.
Lemmy 0.19’s instance blocking does not filter users, only communities, in addition it does not solve the problems of content polution because it does not limit interaction from blocked malicious users in any way, just hides them (it only really works under the assumption that they’re not malicious users and the blocker is just throwing a fit). For these reasons it is not and cannot be seen as an a replacement to defederation.
Also as I already said users are 100% free to decide, they decide by choosing their instances. If you don’t like it you’re free to host your own or move to a more open protocol like Nostr. The idea of federation was built around the idea of communicating with certain instances and blocking others, not about users individually choosing the servers they connect with, Some servers do operate democratically but in the end the fediverse is designed around servers so servers have every right to choose.
Also I’d like to address the “defederation will kill the fediverse” claims I’ve seen floating around. It won’t in fact it’s a dedicated feature of activitypub and has been in use since forever, instances are able to block ones that go against their values either due to the way those instances are operated or the users they allow on them. This is how it’s worked since the beginning and almost certainly how it will continue. Some users don’t like this and believe that they should be able to access stuff no matter what, failing to realize that they do not own the server their account is hosted on, accessing content on other servers via activitypub requires the content be copied over to your home server, and if the admins don’t want that they can block that server, you don’t really have a say in it because it isn’t your server. So either host your own where you do own it, or move to a more open protocol which exist for the purpose of user freedom and anti-censorship.
I feel like that’s exactly how it was billed to me, find somewhere that federates with who you want, and if that changes, you’re free to move
The choice of email providers is not about which one can exchange mails with GMail.
Some of the time it is though. Like Gmail has a pretty large list of IPs it won’t deliver email from. When self-hosting, it’s something you really do have to worry about.
The reason most people don’t worry about it is that most people only use a handful of free emails and organizations that provide email addresses for their users spend time worrying about it so users don’t have to.
When self-hosting, it’s something you really do have to worry about.
So erecting artificial walls is not positive then. Good we’re on the same page.
No. I definitely prefer email with good spam blocking. I’m not criticizing Google for blocking mail how they do. It’s pretty necessary. Which is also something you learn fairly quickly if you try to self host.
Israel have been successfully pressuring meta to remove and shadow ban accounts sympathetic to Palestinians. The level of censorship is crazy.
OK, I’ll bite. You got something more substantial than “I read it on the internet” to back that up? One reputable source on your accusation? Not sayin’ you’re lying/wrong, just asking for some verifiable proof.
Numerous actual popular accounts and news sources have been suspended. It was major news in the Arabic-speaking world in October. Meta even apologized for auto-translating Palestinian as “terrorist.”
Hate to say it but that’s a fail on producing a reliable source.
Did you want specific accounts?
Palestinian Shebab News Agency has facebook pages shut down
@Eye.on.palestine on IG suspended by Meta, then back up after a backlash.
#IStandWithPalestine and #FreePalestine getting censored by Facebook
You don’t have to humor the troll. We all have the internet we are all free to independently verify.
Thanks, that’s much better.
You know, you have access to search engines too. You don’t need to be lazy and treat the rest of the Internet as your personal stenographer/research assistant.
Fucking HELL, despite how increasingly easy it is to find information, it cannot keep pace with just how utterly fucking lazy people are getting.
At the moment this is coming from secondary sources from within meta so there are no articles about it that I’m aware of. But Palestinians and activists constantly have their content removed, account reach limited, and comments removed (which has happened to me multiple times). People also have their accounts threatened and removed.
These actions are visible constantly, meta have been doing this since the start. For example, when you go to someone’s stories at the top it might show 4 or 5 stories, but when you click through to their profile there’ll be 20+.
Some people I follow don’t even show up at the top anymore and I have to access their stories via their profile page or if I’ve messaged them recently.
After (as of this reply) eight hours, you have produced nothing more than anecdotal evidence if not outright invented. I must assume at this point you are spreading disinformation for whatever your goals may be to that end.
Thank you for wasting everybody’s time.
Go look for yourself instead of being condescending.
What are you some conspiracy nut? /s
Is threads.net going to hit the top of “most defederated” list? People hate it even more than gab and truthsocial.
Best part of it is - it’s all paranoia. Fediverse will never get a sensible percentage of people if everything new gets blocked for no reason, or “because they’ll destroy Fediverse”.
I hate Zuck and Facebook as much as the next person, but I think the rollout is going slowly enough that we don’t need to fight about it yet.
The discussion is important and needs to be had, but it’s premature.
The best case scenario of letting Meta in is neutrality. Far more likely is then actively destroying stuff. Remember, their motto is move fast and break things
So what are they going to do?
The whole “Oh they’ll microsoft it!”-narrative is clearly false already. As plenty people said the last time someone posted that sensationalist “how to kill the fediverse” (or so) blog post already, this is not about Meta trying to “kill” the fediverse. If anything, the opposite. This is them Mozilla-ing it, using it as a defense against new regulations. They can even point to instances defederating en masse as “See? We tried! They’re all blocking us, so it’s not our fault this cross-compatibility isn’t working.” and then in the future use that as a defense against further attempts to open up walled gardens. They tried, the supposedly “open” side actively blocked it, now the other side has to move before they try again.
People misunderstand the actually extremely obvious reason they’re doing this. There’s also an easy reason they’re dragging their feet so much: They don’t want to. But they have to. So they promise they’ll federate, actively hope they get blocked (see above), and only actually do it last-second to avoid issues with new legislation.
Who is going to be swayed by a bunch of randos on the Internet blocking an obviously evil company from joining them? Congress? They’ll just buy the votes for whatever they need. I know nothing about this topic, but it is very obvious that letting an evil company associate with the federal can only make things worse. They’re a bad actor, ergo, we should not do what they want.
https://mastodon.online/@mastodonmigration/111585528118111249
Zuck has been refining his unethical business model for decades, they aren’t joining activitypub to be a team player
Which I never said. Is it required to leave reading comprehension at the door when joining discussions about Meta? Because 'hur dur meta evul" is the extend of allowed specificity?
There’s nuance to evil.
your point about them trying to federate as a defense against new regulations is one i hadn’t considered before. however, that doesn’t reduce the potential harm of federating with threads. facebook/meta have proven at practically every possible chance that they are not to be trusted with even the most inconsequential of things and should be avoided by anyone smart enough to recognize this.
it sounds to me like you are suggesting that federating with threads will prevent them from having that out of “see? we tried”, but i feel that cooperating with facebook/meta in any way is a compromise on my morals that i simply can’t justify.
i’d love to hear what potential benefits you (or anyone else who wants to contribute) believe federating with threads will bring to us other than a ton of users from a different ecosystem, as the discourse around this has been pretty all over the place recently and i think we need more measured opinions on this.
So naive.
Thinking everything can be reduced to a DnD like morality matrix? Yeah I agree, that’s pretty naive. Hence like I said, people think of this in far too simple terms.
We should avoid making blanket demands like this to the fediverse as a whole. I happen to support your position, but we should take into account the diverse nature of the social web.
Instead of making demands, explain your reasoning and leave each community to make up their own mind. This is the beautiful nature of the social web; we have broken decision making down into many smaller units instead of one mega instance/corporation.
Find a community that resonates with your own thinking on this issue, and over time a thousand different servers will gather experiences and a picture will start to form; was federation with Meta a good or a bad thing?
Defederation is cancer and it will kill Fediverse faster than any Meta.
Millions of Facebook users outnumbering previous users 100 to 1 will kill it. Oh, there’ll be more activity than ever, but it will be a sanitised corporate safe space for advertisers, where millions of normies argue about politics, with misinformation and ads sprinkled throughout.
wouldn’t Facebook/Threads users be the ones getting the ads?
Not all ads are marked as ads
Okay, and as inevitable as that seems, how about instances wait until that happens, and THEN defederate? The preemptive defederation is disappointing to see. My home instance has done it. I’ll have to wait and see who DOESN’T defederate so I can make an alt account and see for myself what happens.
Meta is a known bad actor right up to the point of knowing they were facilitating a genocide and choosing not to do anything about it because “growth”.
“Yes, he’s murdered people before in cold blood, but maybe he won’t this time. There’s no excuse for banning John Wayne Gacy from the party!”
I’m well aware and deleted my Facebook long long ago.
And yet, despite “knowing” that Meta is a known bad actor, you’re fine with “wait and see” when John Wayne Gacy wants to come to the block party.
Yes, because they aren’t in control of the platform. We are. We can observe and decide, and they can’t stop us. The choice here isn’t “meta or not meta”, but rather “act based upon evidence or not” - meta and their handling of their own platforms where that had absolute control is not what we have here. This is a new situation. But here’s the thing, we will see the data, regardless. Some instances will choose to not defederate immediately, and we will still all benefit from the observation.
Meta has no control over elections but has had definitive negative impact on the same. Meta has no control over Myanmar’s government nor Buddhist institutions yet had had definitive negative impact (to the tune of tens of thousands of bodies and millions of displaced people) on that nation.
This one fact alone should give you pause about letting Meta stink up the fediverse: Threads’ userbase is so large that the entire fediverse, all platforms, is a rounding error by comparison.
So federating with Threads means federating with a userbase that has been algorithmically-conditioned to doomscroll and rage (because that causes “engagement” by which Meta means “ad revenue”) for well over a decade and letting them loose in the fediverse at large.
Fuck that noise.
Let Meta stay in its own smelly shack with the faecal discharge coating the floor, the walls, and the windows. I don’t want that here.
That’s called growth. Or do you want to keep Lemmy exclusive for marginals?
Ability to choose with whom to federate with is a core concept of the Fediverse
If you don’t want any defederation, join an instance that doesn’t do it.
Yeah, and it will end up with huge echochambers full of xenophobes scared of everything and defederating everyone. Defederation is the last step, not the first. Here, paranoia over what might happen years later down a very slippery slope makes people throw away the opportunity to actually grow the platform instead of leaving it with barely any people at all.
baby its not xenophobic to defederate, calm down
No one said such a thing. Where did you get it from?
xenophobes scared of everything and defederating everyone
Go join a monolithic network if you are not interested in the features of the fediverse.
You have yet to show where your statement came from
They literally quoted that statement. Your lack of reading comprehension sounds like a you problem.
I don’t get why they want to defederate without any experience of it either. Let’s see what Meta brings to the table. Maybe they’ll shine a light on the Fediverse and we get a more varied group of people on the platform.
What Meta has brought to the table in the past. "Maybe we should give them a
secondthirdfourthumpteenth chance!Anyone wondering it’s a long winded article blaming meta for a genocide, personally I don’t really see how it fits the conversation beyond ‘zuck bad’ because it’s nothing that’s going to happen here
It is an illustration (and a particularly powerful one) of just where Meta’s ethics lie.
You don’t invite serial killers to your Halloween party. You don’t invite Meta to your online community. Same reason in both cases.
No, that’s not a core concept of Fediverse, that’s exactly the opposite. You want echo chambers? There are plenty of them already. It should be the user who decides what content to see and with which instances to interact, not instance admins.
Imagine Chrome not allowing you to visit specific sites and then Firefox not allowing you to visit a different set of sites. That would be a death of the web.
Imagine Chrome not allowing you to visit specific sites and then Firefox not allowing you to visit a different set of sites.
Imagine a worse, less fitting analogy
You can literally spin up your own instance in 20 minutes and see every instance ever if you’d like, it’s a choice and its good to have
You can build your variant of Chrome yourself as well. Analogy is fitting.
I totally agree.
Users should have the power to block instances themselves, not just moderators.
On the contrary, defederation is vital to the health of the network. Choosing which instances to not interact with, like far-right groups and hate speech groups, allows users to focus on reasonable content on their home server.
The instance should also be transparent on which instances they defederate with so occasionally the user can venture out into the wild west and see other instances and their points of view.
That causes fragmentation of the network, which in turn will kill Fedi over time.
On the contrary: Advising popular instances to defederate with threads will actually help promote diversity of instances, since the Threads population is orders of magnitude a larger network than Mastodon. Having popular instances defederate with threads will keep lemmy from actually just merging into the threads network.
No, as I explained in other comments.
Exactly cuz threads will lure a lot of people in the fediverse after the fediverse gets even more accessible and for all means more recognition than we can think about defederating threads.
Oddly, this may well be what really spurs on decentralisation. I suspect more and more individuals, or small groups, will spin up their own instances rather than all gravitating to the bigger ones, due to issues like this.
Because, ultimately, the more tech-savvy users (the ones more likely to be into the Fediverse, anyway) will want to decide for themselves what content they do and don’t see.
And it’s nothing to do with whether or note someone likes/trusts Meta. It’s people being able to make their own decisions on what content they want to be able to follow and not have it decided by someone else based on their interests. If someone’s friends/family/fandom has a heavy Threads presence, they can spin up their own instance and be able to follow that content themselves without it really affecting anyone else. (and without having to sign up to Threads themselves…)
Let’s not defederate from every corporate player. Some of them can probably respect reasonable rules of civility.
But fuck Meta. We already know how this plays out.
We know there’s a huge wave of hatred and misinformation incoming. We’ve seen it on their other platforms.
When Tumblr came out about the idea of opening up and using activity pub people were in favor of that idea. It’s not just hating companies, Facebook really has a bad track record when it comes to abusive practices and also extremely poor content moderation (you can find right wing hate speech on Facebook despite them having policies against it, people report it and nothing happens).
There was an interesting paired poll done, asking about federation with Threads and federation with Tumblr.
66% of people were wary of or actively opposed federating with Threads. Fewer than 20% were wary of or actively opposed federating with Tumblr.
It’s not “defederate from every corporate player”. It’s passing this message on to Meta:
Okay. I’ve seen stuff like this on both mastodon, and here, but i haven’t heard about them doing anything that would actually harm the fediverse. I guess i don’t know what the problem is. I know they’ve got a negative reputation, and for good reason, but isn’t that the awesome part of threads being federated? We can follow and connect to people there without being part of their system, and therefor not susceptible to their bs? If I’m missing something please fill me in.
It is inevitable that Meta will try to kill the fediverse while chasing profits, there is no other possibility in their endgame.
If that is pushing ads into other instances or killing those instances entirely we don’t know yet but it will happen.
It has to because the shareholders must always have more.
I just don’t think it’s possible for something to kill the fediverse. And if it is possible, then it is a flaw in the design of the fediverse and needs to be fixed.
People have been writing about this ad nauseum. It’s the embrace, extend, extinguish strategy. Join fediverse, extend the spec with so that not all clients are compatible with all features, repeat as necessary until everyone is using your client, finally drop compatibility with other clients.
All activity pub needed to do was create a user rights guidelines that prevents profiting off the data. Meta wouldn’t have touched the Fediverse with the 10-foot pole, if that were the case.
Lololol and what legal mechanism are you going to use to enforce that?
ActivityPub is a protocol, not a fucking organization. It literally has no agency.
You can licence a protocol
ActivityPub can’t license anything. When you identify actual human beings in this conversation, perhaps you might have a point. So far you don’t.
First off, calm the hell down. You’re being needlessly antagonistic.
Secondly, it seems like the W3C is the publisher of the activity pub standard seems like they ducats what is an isnt compliant.
Seems like of was specifically authored by a team including Evan Prodromou according to the wiki.
If they wanted too, but like literally and open source software, it could have been given licencing requirements
Specifically, my research has turned up that implementations of these protocols can be licensed. Threads’ version of ActivityPub likely has its own licence. I think it would be safe to say that the creators of Lemmy and Mastodon specifically could have privacy rights dictated within their license implementation. That would nullify threads legal capabilities.
Give https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html a read. Might sway you, might not.
This is an excellent point. Thanks!
in that case considering meta is saying that it would take nearly a year to federate the platform we probably should defederate them.
What point in that linked blog swayed you? The circumstances are quite different. XMPP was dogshit when Google started working with it. ActivityPub is light years ahead.
I really don’t know enough to say one way or the other, but the fact that this is an established Microsoft practice swayed me. I can actually believe google didn’t intend to do what it did to xmpp as a log of google employees from the 2000’s speak highly of the company, but these executives are traded like nfl players, and i know enough about meta’s history to believe they may do this. Besides I’m still new to development, but i don’t see many other reasons why it would take meta nearly a year to fully launch federation.
Actually this just occurred to me, but isn’t it interesting which accounts were linked first?
Triple-E predates Microsoft. IBM was doing it before Bill Gates was a twinkle in the mailman’s eye.
Meta will be okay making money off lemmy indirectly for a while. Then, if they grow, they’ll want more than a toehold.
When it’s Facebook, trust that greed and power are the goals.
People are concerned because there were examples of such things going horribly wrong, most notably with Google and XMPP.
Way back in the day, Google announced that its Talk messenger will support XMPP, which made decentralization fans very happy - finally, they can communicate with everyone from the comfort of their decentralized instance!..oh.
Google started implementing features in Talk that are incompatible with XMPP, and then dropped XMPP support altogether, ending up deprecating Talk in favor of Google-only Hangouts. This forced many XMPP users to get into Google’s ecosystem, since the people they contacted through XMPP were mostly just using Google Talk, and they couldn’t be contacted through XMPP any more. As a result, XMPP became worse off than it started and got practically forgotten by all but 1,5 nerds who keep it alive.
now most of their contacts were in defederated Google to which they now didn’t have access.
this ☝️. Those of us who remember what happened then, understand the potential dangers of federating with a juggernaut like META.
We should tread lightly!
It’ll be successful and the current devs will lose the ability to unilaterally control the project.
So competition, that’s what they are afraid of.
That’s the face you make when the hamster in your ass sneezes.
That is beyond offensive. As a butthole hamster shover upper, I refuse to be brought down to Zuck’s level, there aint no way possible we ( hamster asshole stuffers) should be dragged through the mud and besmirch our good name. Let the robot lizard people keep him. Harumph…
If you don’t subscribe to threads you’ll never see it.
*everyone doesn’t
Let users decide because we’re fucking adults.
deleted by creator
The above is solvable if you block them I guess, but by default it will completely ruin everything.
Yes. One minute of a user’s time and all that’s gone.
Compare that with having to move instances due to admins blocking at the instance level.
Great thing about the fediverse
People get to decide what they want from their platform
Surely you’re aware of the embrace, extend, extinguish corporate strategy.
People only get to decide what they want from their platform until facebook starts extending the spec. Then your client will become incompatible with some posts, and so on and so forth.
In summary, it’s a threat to the platform itself.
Exactly, I hereby decide that I would like to ignore corporate efforts to undermine this burgeoning new platform. I furthermore reserve the right to complain about the loss of said platform in future years by claiming that it’s everyone elses fault for allowing corporate encroachment.
deleted by creator
think jerboa lets you block instances
Yeah dude let’s just federate with an instance maintained by a corporation that has undoubtedly caused a genocide in Myanmar by turning a blind eye to a far-right hate speech group that caused an entire fucking minority to flee into another country.
I don’t get why people are supporting and saying “oh it must be up to the user” like bro this is the company we’re dealing with. Fuck that fuck threads fuck zuckerberg i don’t want his shit cancer near something that’s going well so far.
Imagine thinking Myanmar is facebooks fault. Wow.
Read up rookie
https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in-myanmars-attacks-on-minorities/
I don’t know what version of reality you live in but i hope these articles are illuminating
I can’t imagine why you are getting push back. I can tell you are very passionate in your position and are on the right side of a complicated issue. The only reason I can think of is your idea hasn’t become mainstream yet and people hate it when they don’t know they should be upset.
Either way I have no skin in it and I agree that meta is garbage. Thank you for be passionate about something in this dispassionate world.
:3
I’d imagine is because Myanmars situation is way more complicated than Facebook “undoubtedly caused a genocide”.
Seems like it’s getting trivialized to shit on Facebook
Facebook deserves every ounce of shit it has coming to them.
True.
But do you believe the actual people commiting the genocide and manipulating Facebook shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions?
🙄 I guess the years of violence well before hand we their fault too. Imagine trying to tie years off violence and genocide to Facebook.
It’ll always be Burna to me.
It will always be … a name that doesn’t exist and has never existed?
(Hint: BURMA. It’s hard to sound smart when you can’t even get a single fucking name right! Especially the name that “it will always be” for you. Holy fucking shit!)
You wrote all that over an obvious typo? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
An “obvious” typo you missed when you wrote it. When you read it back after posting. In a post where you were putting on airs of being smarter than everybody.
I fucking love it when that happens and love to rub it in.
Their direct fault? No. But they sure as fuck share a lot of the blame in pouring gasoline on the fire.
That one is actually public record, with
-
Facebook using their influence to set up in the country in a way that made it the dominant form of internet access for the country, enough that a large number of people considered Facebook=internet
-
Facebook getting multiple reputable warnings about what was happening on the platform, what their advertising policies and algorithms were encouraging, and they chose to not act on them and instead continued to profit from it
-
They finally did act after a whole lot of harm was done
-
Because it was totally and we have the receipts? Imagine being that ignorant of world events.
Then go join threads.net? Nobody’s stopping you from doing that. That would put you on a server friendly to your beliefs.
Server admins also have opinions, and are not required to take a democratic vote and each individual user’s choice into account. They can decide for themselves, and they will, for good or ill. If you don’t like where it ends up, your user decision should be to fuck off to threads.
I don’t think that’s what they’re saying.
They’re saying that some users and admins might choose to wait and see
“Yes, Jeffrey has, in the past, killed and eaten gay men. But we should wait and see. It’s impolite not to invite him to the party!”
I don’t want to use their platform, but I get why some people might choose to stay federated so that there is incentive to pull people to mastodon and educate people about the issues
There’s enough nuance there that I’m not dead set on either side, and I think we still have the chance to defederate later if there’s an increase in spam and harmful content / disinformation.
“Jeffrey doesn’t always eat people. Just sometimes. We should totally go clubbing with him and spurn him later if he eats one of us.”
This is why I don’t understand all the hysteria about this.
If I don’t want to see Threads or I don’t want Threads to see me, I can go to a Threads account and click “block threads.net”.
But obviously that’s too complicated and it’s easier to just whinge to your instance admin about how Threads federation will be the death of us all. 🙄
If there was a bot that just flooded All with far right talking points, do you think admins ought to block that or leave it to the users?
What if it was far right mixed in with cat memes?
What if it started more slowly like a few posts an hour and then ramped up over 6 months to be 1000s of posts per hour?
Well, that’s spam. So obviously it would make sense to block that.
Sure, but where is the line between spam and threads content? If the content a community produces is heavily manipulated, isn’t that undesirable for all the same reasons as spam ?
This. Imagine begging daddy admin to protect you from mean Meta.
You understand that no matter how much you kneel down to service Meta, Zuck the Fuck won’t be trickling anything down on you that isn’t a bodily fluid, right?
And hey, I’m not going to kink-shame. Just pointing out that if that isn’t your specific kink, you might want to wake up to there being zero dollars trickling down to you.
What a meaningless, worthless comment. Letting Threads federate with the rest of the Fediverse doesn’t give Zuckerberg power over us (unless you’d care to explain how it does) - rather, it just gives its users and our users the ability to interacted. Why are you so interested in building walls?
I swear, I’m seeing the western equivalent of wumaos servicing Meta here. Only at least the wumaos got paid; it made sense. These idiots are doing the labour for free!
It seems like you didn’t read my comment, since yours has very little to do with it.
Say “I don’t know what a wumao is” without using those words.
Again, you are not replying to the content of my comment. You want socialism to be taken seriously as an ideology? Not making everything a shitpost could be a good place to start.
You have the full right to decide, you can switch servers to one that chooses to, or open multiple accounts. That’s your choice. This isn’t Nostr, in the Fediverse instance blocking is normal and it happens without your input, but you know what does happen with your input? Registering your account on a server that fits your needs best, or as close as possible.
But there’s one thing my own experience with XMPP and OOXML taught me: if Meta joins the Fediverse, Meta will be the only one winning. In fact, reactions show that they are already winning: the Fediverse is split between blocking Meta or not. If that happens, this would mean a fragmented, frustrating two-tier fediverse with little appeal for newcomers.
How would defederation from meta lead to killin fediverse ?
Basic EEE strategy (embrace, extend, extinguish). For example, take XMPP. It was a wonderful federated chat protocol. Google joined it with its Google Talk application. All was well. Until it wasn’t. You see, Google added some “new features” that could be used only with the Google talk app and account. So people flocked to it. All is still well. But then google decides to close the gates - Google Talk is its own thing now and you can’t talk to people on other servers or with other apps. Take what hapoened wit XMPP. Google embraces XMPP with Giogle Talk. Google add some shiny “new features” that are exclusive to Google Talk (extend). Google cuts off XMPP access to other domains other than the Google Talk domain, thus finishing the extinguish phase.
Just replace Google with Meta/Facebook/Zuckerberg, Google Talk with Threads and XMPP with ActivityPub/Mastodon/Lemmy and you can see how it could happen. The XMPP Wikipedia page has it covered very well, and there’s a dedicated Embrace, extend, extinguish page on Wikipedia if you want to read more.
I think we are on same page, I am aginst federating with threads
There’s a list of people that have agreed to block it at https://fedipact.online/
lemmy.world and by extension mastodon.world is probably still waiting to see what happens. The other instance I have my account on has a rather hands-off approach to moderation soooo I hope there’s some way for a user to block an instance on their own.
NextThis version of LemmyHow does one block an instance as a user in Lemmy? I’m not seeing it, but if it only dropped today maybe the version hasn’t spread far and wide yet.
It actually just released yesterday!
Hah! Sweet, thanks for the heads up!
