Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
I'm starting to think people that claim to like the fediverse dont understand the point. We want to be able to follow Threads accounts here without having to have a Threads account. That's the whole point.
No single entity is in control of social media. That's the glory of federation.
Blocking major companies from the fediverse will be the death of the concept. Don't silo yourselves in fits of hate and segregation or you're no better than the things you claim to protest.
https://techhub.social/@HilliTech/112207853697301125
@HilliTech Use "I" not "we".
I do not want to follow threads accounts or see content from them in my feed. You are free to do both.
@happyborg and you’re free to not follow the accounts so you won’t see it in your timeline.
No reason for a Mastodon server to block threads when users can manage it on their own.
@HilliTech Plenty of reasons, but that's not what I'm commenting on.
@jsit yes, I saw that this was happening. It's a good reason why you should use Mastodon over Threads. And being able to pick and choose what you see from Threads from the safety of your Mastodon client is the best way to get the best of both worlds.
@HilliTech allowing Threads specifically is setting a double standard. Threads refuses to moderate content and people that would mean an automatic defederation by literally anyone if it was just another instance. Federating with Threads means you don't care about the safety of your users.
@cygnathreadbare We'll see how it goes once you're able to be on Threads and interact with Mastodon users. Right now Threads is a voluntary follow and see only what you follow basis. But there isn't any way of knowing how Threads being allowed to federate will go until it's fully implemented. Premature blocking is just isolating your server and your users.
Again, it goes against the point of the Fediverse.
@HilliTech I disagree. I've seen lots of bad actors defederated by almost everyone when they set up new instances because of their previous known behavior. Facebook's previous (and current) moderation is abysmal, Threads is full of transphobes and fascists *now*, I don't see any reason to give them a chance.
If this was about companies I'd have blocked Fliboard and Vivaldi too, and I have seen no one suggesting that (surely a few might have, but it's not a common suggestion).
@cygnathreadbare We'll just have to see how it goes. If the fediverse survives, people will want to follow Threads accounts. Those that don't can go off and be apart of their niche instances and hide.
Again, the beauty of the fediverse. I just think that prematurely blocking Threads is asking to become irrelevant.
It just comes off as hypocritical to say "we want to build a global decentralized social network where no single entity controls everything" then when one of the world's biggest social networks wants to join and increase its relevance we're suddenly too good for these unwashed masses.
We only want people to join under our terms. And that's unrealistic. The people that are so afraid of losing the fediverse as we know it are the ones that will be its death.
@HilliTech Ummm... hate to tell you but you're missing the point of "free choice" here. It's their choice to not federate.
I don't think you'd have a problem with blocking if your instance blocked - say a pro-LGBTQ-hate instance or a pro-terrorist-instance, or even a anti-abortion-instance...would you?
@jann They're free to block Threads and users are free to quit using the instance that isolated them from an entire social network. It goes both ways.
I'm all for freedom. People are free to do dumb things all the time. Why not block everyone in your instance from being able to follow the US president or government entities on Threads because you made the decision for them.
@HilliTech That's not the apparent intent of your posting. It SEEMED (forgive me) that by typing: "Blocking major companies from the fediverse will be the death of the concept." you were saying they shouldn't block threads.
You didn't indicate they should be able to. that sentence was provocative. That's why I responded like I did.
Yes, people have the right to block. MANY block threads for what they see as a good reason. I follow @potus but I won't go on threads itself.
@jann It's nuanced. I think instances shouldn't be blocking Threads, though they have that choice. I believe they are setting themselves up for failure by doing so.
I'm not their boss. They can do what they want. I'm just stating that what they are doing is not the solution.
@HilliTech @Flipboard if you don’t understand why people don’t want Zuckerberg and Threads here, you haven’t been paying attention for the past two decades.
@knightlie @Flipboard I totally understand the Meta hate. I don't like its platforms either. But why cut off your nose to spite your face? Bad actors are all over the internet. The data on the fediverse is open to scrape Meta federated or not. The only thing you're doing when you block Threads from posting in your server is removing the ability for your users to be involved in a larger global community.
The same people that complain about nationalism want to live on a fediverse island. I think it's hypocritical.
@HilliTech @Flipboard Metas business model is to buy or destroy, not join. It’s not about scraping data, it’s about Zuckerbergs intentions, and he’s shown what his intentions are time and time again.
@knightlie The point of the fediverse is it can't be bought. It's not centralized or owned by a single entity. While I don't doubt you're right and Zuck would like to somehow absorb the fediverse and make it Meta's, I'm not entirely sure how that would work or if it is possible.
I try to worry about threats I can see, not ones I can imagine. Let's hope it all works out.
Ugh, I find the whole thing so untrue and disagreeable on so many levels, Mattias. But, I'm not really interested in the discussion with the group of yes people that are there. They don't even seem to be trying to understand any of the objections.
@HilliTech with all due respect, you don't speak for me. I like the fediverse. I don't want any interaction whatsoever with threads. The point, for me, is community. I have that, and threads would not add that for me, but would threaten it.
@iris That's fine. You don't have to interact with threads and if it is an existential threat like it may be for LGBTQ folks if moderation becomes impossible, then it makes sense to have instances that block Threads.
My argument is that we shouldn't be too quick to ban it before we see how it will behave as part of the system. There are terrible people in the world, but there are also some amazing ones. Banning the entirety of Threads eliminates an entire sector of possible interaction.
And maybe that's ok for you. My statement isn't meant to say you can't have your own free will and choose. What I don't like is instance admins just unilaterally making decisions for everyone.
@HilliTech (1) you're shifting the goalposts, and (2) this isn't a live-and-let-live situation. That's for opinions about food, not people. There's plenty to read about the "paradox of tolerance" if you're interested.
I invite you to edit your first post if you're interacting on good faith here. You claim to not have heard from people liking the fediverse without threads.
@iris I think it's a nuanced discussion. No goalposts, just complex situations. I stand by what I said and acknowledge that blanket statements don't work in either direction.