matthieu_xyz, 5 months ago

@dansup Blocked by default but opt-in by user? WOW! This is an amazing feature.

More fediverse softwares should be like this!!

btp, 5 months ago

@dansup

Gigachad

brianch, 5 months ago

@dansup That seems like a great solution! 😮

I personally don't want it blocked, obviously not because I like or trust meta (although I do think the e.e.e fears aren't realistic, the fediverse is well established and no matter how much they extend, few here will switch to meta if they cut the federation later), but because it might be a way to talk with some acquittances that only use their platform (which is literally everyone I have contact irl, nobody I know is in the fediverse).

dnddeutsch, 5 months ago

@dansup that's a nice feature! wish Mastodon had the option to make a domain block opt-out too. Would resolve a lot of conflict about #threads 👍

thisismissem, 5 months ago

@dansup how does this work for new accounts?

rwg, 5 months ago

@dansup So can individual Pixelfed.social users unblock Threads, even though the instance has a block in place?

thisismissem, 5 months ago

@rwg @dansup It's not that an instance domain block exists, but rather every user has been given a domain block on threads which they can delete, as far as I understand it

Kieranmansfield, 5 months ago

@dansup that’s interesting, I mean it probably doesn’t make much sense to have #threads integrate with #Pixelfed or is that just me?

dansup, 5 months ago

@Kieranmansfield Not really, since threads is microblogging like Mastodon, though you can follow accounts who do post statuses with photo/video attachments, and also interact/view comments

Kieranmansfield, 5 months ago

@dansup For me, it doesn’t really feel like the place for threads content.

danslerush, 5 months ago

@dansup And thanks for that Dan ! 🖖

notnixon, 5 months ago

@dansup Unblocked. Thanks for sharing that option. It's important to keep the dream of open social web alive.

tauon, 5 months ago

@notnixon @dansup they're going to e.e.e us, you know? that's not really helping the open web.

notnixon, 5 months ago

@tauon Hey 👋 Nice to meet you.

So I'd respectfully disagree based on three things.

1. There's no benefit to them for doing that.
2. There's no evidence that EEE is their intention.
3. They have no history of using that tactic in the past.

Of course I could be wrong, but I'm not a fan of walling myself off from the growing social web before anything nefarious happens.

I'm not a fan of Meta and will happily rant about their mistakes, but I'll be giving their users the benefit of the doubt.

andrewt, 5 months ago

@notnixon of course there's history of that — remember when Facebook worked interoperably with email and SMS messages and now nobody emails or texts their friends because Facebook has a "messenger" app that is just called "messenger" to trick people into thinking it's the default, and they bought WhatsApp when that emerged as competition so now even people who don't use their messenger use their other messenger.

Also back when RSS and visiting websites was a thing, they designed their pages system to work as a kind of RSS reader so you could follow pages and read what they said without leaving Facebook, and once everyone got into the habit of just looking at Facebook, they started hiding everything from those pages unless they paid for as placement.

This is exactly how they always operate. Why do you imagine that their interopertating with fedi would be in good faith? Isn't it more likely that they'd interoperate with fedi, then try to move all the users over from here to there and then turn off the connection again?