@folkerschamel Ok thanks, personally hope they stay away,, I simply do not trust or use anything owned by Meta.
As for blocking other domains, I already have Threads.net pre-blocked. I did it via preferences - data import, by uploading a CSV file containing Threads.net among, However there is already conjecture as to whether simply domain blocking Threads will protect your privacy if/when they join the fediverse. https://privacy.thenexus.today/just-blocking-threads-isnt-enough/
This mistress-mantisse thing was a fundamentally different situation: When creating a #facebook / #instagram / #threads account, then you provide #meta a lot of private information.
But if #threads joins the #fediverse, then #meta will be able to access the same public information about you which it can access already today. And blocking does not make any difference.
In general:
Always be aware that all posts on #mastodon are public!
For private data use #signal or similar.
@folkerschamel i know that, but the article leans into problems with federation, is the point I was making.
Simply blocking Threads will solve nothing, far better is to keep the gate shut from them....they have a social network, if you want to connect with Threads users, get a Threads account. Stay away from the fediverse.
As For private data I already use Signal, sadly it's not social media, but E2EE social media, I like it.
The article is containing some false technical information, risking giving people a false sense of privacy. For example:
"With today's software, the only obvious way to protect against #1 is not to have any followers on instances that federate with Meta."
That's not correct. #meta can access already today all your public data. No blocking will protect against that. Blocking won't protect your privacy.
The only effect of blocking is that you personally see less posts. That's all.
@folkerschamel i have no doubt they will be able to get around the non follower issue if and when they federate, Especially if nothing is done.
Far better would be to have some instances that federates with Threads, and then create a kind of firewall between those and the rest of the fediverse, who want nothing to do with them.
60% of users are on servers w/o info about their stance on #threads. Technical default would be federating.
Largest server planning to federate with #threads is mastodon.social hosting 15% of users. Largest server planning to block #threads is mstdn.social hosting 2% of users.
It's not 60% of servers, but 60% of users are on such servers.
It's also not 10% of users who support the #fedipact, but 10% of users are on servers which support the #fedipact. Not all users on such servers support the #fedipact. I vaguely remember that some #fedipact server admin posted about polling their users getting 52% support or so. Also vice versa, users like you support #fedipact but live on non-fedipact servers.
Though the fedipact won't stop them, it will at least make it harder for them, (like a preemptive block of Threads won't do anything now, though I did it anyway) hence my original toot.
Though I have now learned that Threads coming across is a long way away...personally I hope they stay away full stop.
I Don't use META products, I Don't trust META products.
Personally currently I don't use any #meta products and currently have no plans for doing this.
But I think it would be great to be able to interact with people on #threads with my #mastodon account. So I hope that #threads will implement #activitypub
In general I like the idea of technology using open standards, breaking up barriers and facilitating communication and exchange between people.
If you post something and someone on a non fedi-pact server boosts it, Threads will be able to see it. There's also the possibility of scraping an instance's front end and user RSS feeds.
Add comment