@bytor I did not sign the #fedipact because I am on my own family & friends instance and I want the choice to use my fediverse identity to talk to threads.
However I recognize that very large instances harm the distributed nature of the fediverse. It becomes centralized for all practical purposes.
Just off the top of my head, no instance / admin should control the experience of more than 1% of people of fediverse.
threads is paying people to post with their "bonus program" and yes ofc it's scummy lmao
The Threads bonus is an invite-only bonus program that lets you earn money on your Threads content... Based on the performance [and] number of posts you create.
is this really the vibe we want them bringing to the fediverse???
Why Meta is looking to the fediverse as the future for social media
“You could imagine an extension to the protocol eventually — of saying like, ‘I want to support micropayments,’ or … like, ‘hey, feel free to show me ads, if that supports you.’ Kind of like a way for you to self-label or self-opt-in. That would be great,” Cottle noted, speaking casually. Whether or not Meta would find a way to get a cut of those micropayments, of course, remains to be seen.
If your instance won’t sign on, find a smaller instance that already has. There’s a list of a few hundred listed over on the fedipact site. 😉
We don’t need the “flagship” instances that will put up with the corporate colonization of this beautiful network that we’ve all built together. https://kolektiva.social/
@morph
Me too. Seems like a really random bug to me and it crossed my mind, that it might be on purpose to load from a replacement instance. But that would also not make any sense to me.
Expected behaviour would be an error message. @beandev@apps
saw someone speculating that #FediPact is an inside job by meta to intentionally fracture the fediverse and, damn, i wish they were paying me for this lmao
if any of you have ever been, like, properly immersed in tech bro culture and seen by the tech bros as "on their side," you would know it doesnt even make sense to them when you tell them real hate exists online. they dont understand it's more than just name-calling, that there are real world consequences to allowing that kind of shit on a platform. they think of it all as "it's just online, ignore them lol" and literally laugh if you mention moderation tools.
i spent four years getting one of the most prestigious compsci degrees you can get.
there was no tech ethics course.
they dont understand the consequences of their actions.
and they never will.
#fedipact or there is no fediverse. just another cesspool of bigotry.
hey! this post is doing well! if you want to help out a trans woman who was fired for being trans and can't find work because the tech world has gone to shit, my venmo is $rachaelspooky
fedi mercury no-meta challenge coin features the avatar of the admin of tooters.org on the front, fades to fedi mercury holding 2 mechanical keyboards lighting and the coin turns to show a no-meta logo and #NoMETA and #FediPACT lettering. made in blender #b3d
fedi mercury no-meta challenge coin features the avatar of the admin of oliphant.social on the front, fades to fedi mercury holding 2 mechanical keyboards lighting and the coin turns to show a no-meta logo and #NoMETA and #FediPACT lettering. made in blender #b3d
fedi mercury no-meta challenge coin features the avatar of the admin of beige.party on the front, fades to fedi mercury holding 2 mechanical keyboards lighting and the coin turns to show a no-meta logo and #NoMETA and #FediPACT lettering. made in blender #b3d
"the purpose of The Pact is to embolden instances to commit to blocking project92/barcelona/threads. a lotta peeps were already talking bout preemptively blocking it since the march leaks, me included. and the idea popped into my head that maybe if we had like, y'know, a thingy peeps could sign to show their support for it... it might weaken that argument that it's like pointless or whatever, and might make that choice easier to make"
@vantablack there's also instances which haven't officially signed the Fedipact but do already block Threads (TBH I think all the main Northern European based instances other than mastodon.social do now block Threads).
Apart from the poor moderation there, it is very likely to flood the server and increase the costs of running it due to extra data traffic and the way its set up is more geared towards helping Meta gather data rather than real interaction, so there is 0 gain for anyone to federate with Threads
If you want to complain to @verge about their blatant transphobia over #FediPact then I’d recommend you do a user search on your instance because a lot of their editors and writers are on dot social. Real people you can contact that aren’t bots. I won’t post them here in case someone decides I’m inciting something… Which I’m not! I’m just offering information to the masses!
that's seven hundred and sixty-seven instance admins and mods who've decided to defederate the shit outta threads and take a stand against meta!!!!!!!!!!
A #FEDIPACT challenge coin featuring Fedi Mercury. front: Fedi Mercury holding 2 IBM model M keyboards. Iconic pose made famous by "Freddie" Mercury. Lettering: HELLIONS and FediMercury back: the META logo with a ghostbusters seatbelt. Lettering: #NoMETA#FEDIPACT made in blender #b3d
Letting a paedophile babysit your children makes about as much sense as letting Meta federate with the Fediverse. Oh, they're charming and seem sincere? That's makes it all better, then. Sorry I fretted.
Meta are provably Evil, a place where evils of all degrees throng like flies around shit. If Gargron et al won't reconsider or even adhere to their own guidelines about problematic servers, then their servers should also be cast out to live among the Truth.socials, because they're effectively saying they don't give a steaming pile about what the Fediverse stands for or the users therein.
@Uraael
It occurred to me after the discussion yesterday, that the Mastodon Organization may not legally be able to call for a block here, as that may be considered anti-competitive practices. If that's the case, then the smartest thing they can do is keep their mouths shut, reaffirm that this is an open network, and wait for Threads to Federate and wait until they have shown, in such a way that can be proven in a court of law, that they are completely unable to moderate content which is illegal in Deutschland, where the Mastodon Organization is based.
Regardless of why they are doing it, whether or not a server blocks other servers does not affect other servers that don't block them. Blocking a server over the lack of a block is absurd, and a quick way to degrade the connectivity of the network: all admins would be doing is cutting their users off from the largest good-faith server.
There are good reasons to Limit posts from .Social, this isn't one.
The ol' 'let them do harm and build evidence' ploy, eh? Boy, but I am tired of seeing that old cliche trotted out. We know they do harm. As stated, there is no argument FOR federation with Meta that doesn't ignore or accept user harm as some kind of collateral damage, or here as you suggest a way to build evidence. Sorry, Trans people (as an example), but you're going to have to live with a firehose of abuse while we build a case to shut off the firehose we supported connecting to: is that really how you envisage it working? To me that's wholly unacceptable. And for the record Trans people are already seeing abuse from Threads. Championing a protocol at the expense of users is ludicrous and completely counter to the ethos that built the Fedi in the first place.
If Mastodon has entered into a legal agreement that prevents them from acting with impunity towards Meta as they would with any other Fediverse server, then that's their stupidity and they have become a vector for abuse that all other servers should take stock of.
And if they're at the point where they cannot stem the flow of harm, or have accepted a certain degree of it in order to make the federation work then they really can't be called a "good faith" server any more, can they?
Blocking a server over the lack of a block is absurd
Are you telling me that a server unable to stop paedophilic content from another server would not be blocked by the rest? Of course it would. And you'll recall .social was widely Blocked/Silenced when it struggled with Spam accounts not so long ago. Nothing is too big or important to block, as long as users are informed and have the choice to place themselves back in harm's way should they wish to. What's absurd is your suggestion this is absurd behaviour when in fact it's fairly commonplace.
Leute, die #Fedipact oder #Fediblock als die heilige Kuh in der #Fediverse verehren, glauben auch noch an den Osterhasen, oder? Dabei ist dies nichts anderes wie eine virtuelle Hexenjagd.
Wann wird endlich kapiert, dass ein Block auf Instanzebene immer nur die letzte Wahl bei ganz bestimmten "Themen" sein soll. Ein Block auf Userebene ist immer besser und deswegen zu bevorzugen. Und ja, das trifft auch bei diesem leidigen Thema #Threads zu!
"extreme anti-trans hate content remains widespread across instagram, facebook, and threads. characterized by fear-mongering, lies, conspiracy theories, dehumanizing tropes, and violent rhetoric, these posts — many by high-follower accounts — aim to boost engagement, generate revenue, and seed hateful narratives about trans, nonbinary, and gender non-conforming people. these accounts profit from such hate, and so does meta and its shareholders"
i think the whole framing of fedipact and the meta surrounding blocking threads as being "mere drama" is really fucking annoying
like... this might just be a small inconvenience to you, but this is a matter of SAFETY for us. it's about keeping our communities free from harm, both in the short and long term
brushing it aside as simple internet drama just shows you don't really give a fuck about what happens to us
i wish gargron would say literally just a single word about FediPact, even just something short and dismissive like "not a fan," so i could quote it on the website lmao
