I really want to nip threads in the bud. Besides blocking threads.net itself, defederate from any instances that do not. This is blatantly an EEE strategy and a united front is the only way to save what have been accomplished. Here is how Indivudals can do it on mastodont as an example to follow. https://hachyderm.io/@crowgirl/110663465238573628 Edit found this , https://fedipact.online/ please sign.
I’m for blocking Threads. I’m not for blocking instances that support Threads. That’s ridiculous, you’d just split the community and make the Fediverse irrelevant.
I see only OP calling for defedding instances that don’t defed Meta. Fedipact https://fedipact.online/ makes no mention, never seen it on Mastodon. I think the flamewar should be toned down a little.
And this is how you gut the Fediverse… Don’t even give people the option to run their own single-user instance to avoid the drama. Defederate them, too. Splinter everything into oblivion.
EDIT: Seriously. As someone who isn’t a hardcore militant FOSS federation activist, this is the kind of stuff that makes me want to throw up my hands and say, “Screw it. I guess I’ll go sign up at Threads.”
I would agree with you if threads didn’t choose to avoid market with decent consumer protection laws, EU.
They aren’t launching at EU for a reason, and that’s good enough for me to take a stance against them.
Just because they haven’t launched in the EU yet doesn’t mean they won’t. They were clearly rushing to get this out the door. I’d be absolutely shocked if they don’t go to the EU since Facebook and Instagram are there already.
Facebook is in a lot of shit with EU right now because of GDPR non compliance. They are at a risk of just getting flat out booted from here if they don’t fix their shit.
That combined with the upcoming Digital Markets Act means they might not get a chance to launch here at all
Won’t they have to comply with at least some EU laws in order to become federated? If EU residents can interact with Threads via another instance, they’ll still be on the hook for all of that mirrored data.
Then go ahead to threads tbh, too many times now has some amazing things on the internet been absolutely fucking ruined by a company or by it becoming a business.
Enough with companies being involved with everything.
Lots of upvotes here but also lots of unhappy replies… I agree with you and want to expand on some things I’ve come across (I’ve written much of this in chats with other people):
-
It’s not easy to “embrace extend extinguish” an open protocol (look at the Internet/ipv4/whatever example) - kerberos is the most compelling example imo, but that still barely applies imo. I have a response to the XMPP example here: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/708874
-
Who chooses social media based on principles? Not very many people, plus even fewer people understand the technology enough to understand those principles (did you know tons of info is already public on activitypub networks?)
-
I guarantee 99% of people replying to you negatively will hop on Twitter/Instagram/Whatsapp/Gmail/whatever and continue handing their info over to super-centralized social media. I have friends IRL and most of them use traditional social media, so hell yeah I want to be able to interact with them from my own fediverse instance (where some info at least is private)! It’s the best of all worlds, and maybe I can get some of the nerdier ones to join me
-
“We don’t want to grow the fediverse Like This” - that’s fine, but why defederate from instances that federate with threads.net (call this second tier/party defederation?)? That’s punishing/activism (which is fine, but should the entire fediverse be activist like this? Most people just want to balance chatting with friends against data privacy/FOSS) instead of just having an opinion - if you’re not federated with threads, then you won’t have threads users interacting with your community
-
I just don’t like there being a cabal of fediverse instances that enact any sort of “purity test.” I’m so far from a free speech absolutist, but if I want to federate with lemmygrad and exploding-heads (idk maybe I just get curious someday), what purpose does it serve for lemmy.world or whoever to defederates from me?
P.s. re the kerberos example - it’s pretty egregious (look it up), but I would love meta/blusky to expand the activityub protocol, it’s missing so much (and the lack of activitypub advancement is another argument against this being another instance of the XMPP embrace extend extinguish)
(I’m interested in expanding my opinion on this stuff, so I welcome constructive comments. I would especially like arguments for and against first tier defederation. Maybe even try to support the EEE argument, but I’ll be skeptical on that one)
-
I support blocking Facebook but not other instances.
I’m all for blocking threads on instances, BUT
defederating with OTHER instances just because they haven’t blocked threads is gonna create a massive split in this community, possibly could kill it. big no 👎
I must genuinely ask? What does this accomplish, a lot of instances being split apart because one federates with meta and the other doesnt, its not like the meta posts are gonna make it to your instance if you defederate meta, so you are really just splitting the community over nothing. Privacy wise, activity pub is public, by design, so they can just already pull all the information it exposes, and likely do. And finally? How does this stop EEE?
How does this stop EEE?
I suppose if we burn our own community to the ground the moment we’re Embraced, there won’t be anything left for Meta to Extend or Extinguish.
Exactly.
Its not being Chicken Licking and freaking out that the sky is falling but we certainly dont need to play our hand this early in the game.
We know Meta is not a good faith actor. We know they will try to subsume or extinguish the fediverse if they cant control it but we dont need to go pissing our knickers and do the work for them.
I agree that defederation doesn’t solve the problem, the nice thing about federation is everything has an instance associated with it so as a user it is easy to know the source, and although we may not have easy solutions now, the data to provide instance blacklisting to clients is there. Personally I think the better way to neutralize threads would be a strict non-commercial license on all content served from an instance.
Defederating from Threads makes sense. Defederating transitively from anything federated with Threads ends in one of two ways: your instance shrivels up and dies, or you successfully kill Threads. Not particularly good odds. You can’t compete with Meta, you can only try to maintain your independence and value as an independent platform.
This has to be a joke, you can’t be this serious over nothing.
I’m all for blocking Threads as an instance or user, but blocking instances that choose to federate with threads is going to leave a lot users who when Threads breaks its compatibility with Activity Pub with no social graph to keep them tethered to ActivityPub.
Threads can’t get the data we’re worried about it collecting from federation, they can only get it from you installing/using their site or their app. So don’t do that.
I think the difference between this EEE and say XMPPs EEE is Meta/facebook is widely seen as a cancerous entity that people who are already here aren’t going to want to use, and when they break compatibility few people are going to want to switch to their service as long as there’s still enough people here to talk to.
Not to downplay the threat of EEE, we need to remain vigilant. Our best defenses are preemptive defederation or shitposting how we never see ads.
What if you are on Meta’s payroll and want to start this so the Fediverse destroys itself from within? Gotya, sucky Zucc! Nice try. /s
For real, can’t this Meta train derail next to the Titanic already? Joining an open communication standard platform and then complain the open standard communicates with outside. I really think you have been in the wrong place from the very beginning.
deleted by creator
I just blocked them on Mastodon. Thanks!
I’m all for individual users blocking Threads if they’d like to, but I think it’s a terrible idea for instance admins to make that decision for all of their users.
Personally, I don’t see why this is so controversial. I view it as a way to follow the celebs and organizations that would rather use threads, but from the comfort of Mastodon that is outside of Meta’s ecosystem.
ActivityPub and the Fediverse is designed to for natural selection to take place. So let it. The users that want to be part of the Fediverse are already here and won’t don’t leave based on what Meta does with Threads. Threads utilizing ActivityPub in the future justifies the means of the Fediverse more than anything else IMO. I despise Meta as much as the next person, but this is not the end of the Fediverse as we know it.
“natural selection” in this context is unregulated capitalism and ends in Meta owning you. No, don’t “let it.” Maintain boundaries between the free and open internet and that governed by corporate interests.
But that’s the risk taken when you create a protocol (ActivityPub) that anyone can tap into. You can’t create something that is open to everyone and then pitch a fit when entity you don’t like or agree decides to take advantage of it. Regardless of how big Threads get, it can’t supecede the ActivityPub protocol. If they decided to defederate down the road in attempts to extinguish the Fediverse, it won’t work, those users will still remain and Threads will go on it’s merry way. Meta can’t kill a W3C protocol.
It is completely inevitable that Meta will add Threads-exclusive functionality that is not compatible with ActivityPub, funnelling users into their own walled garden.
threads will never federate.
