My summary of the pro-federation camp's arguments:
-not every FB user is bad
-more is better
-the fediverse could draw people away from threads
-this represents an opportunity for innovation
-porting an account between instances is hard
These aren't unreasonable arguments on the face of it. However, the consistent flaw is that the people presenting these arguments studiously avoid mentioning any of the real reasons the anti-federation camp are opposed, to wit:
-FB's documented history of enabling genocide
-the obvious fact that since they allow e.g. Libs of Tik Tok on Threads, it is already in violation of most "good" instances' terms of service
-FB's documented current practices of abusing workers in lieu of doing actual moderation
-FB's documented history of doing unethical experiments on their users
-FB's documented history of of enabling illegal (in the USA!) racial and religious discrimination
The one thing that the pro-federation camp WILL mention is the concern over EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish), but I've never seen a reasonable explanation for why this is a scenario we shouldn't fear. It's just handwaving.
The pro-federation camp has also repeatedly tried to dishonestly frame the possibility of an admin making an instance block decision with which their users disagree as an example of tyranny. This, I believe, is because "porting instances is hard" is a wack-ass argument and they know it; thus they must catastrophize it and make it sound worse than it is.
So, overall, I've tried to keep an open mind towards the enthusiasts, but the more I listen to them, the less impressed I become. Over several months, none of them (that I've interacted with) have acknowledged, without prompting, that people who aren't straight and cis and Christian and white and able-bodied and moderate/liberal/conservative have a different set of risks to consider than those who are.
And that's the irritating part. Because we're RIGHT FUCKING HERE, we're your mutuals in many cases! We're doing our best to tell y'all what OUR experiences with Mark Zuckerberg's company have been like. The information is there. Thus, we can observe that you remain ignorant out of callousness and carelessness, or you are deliberately lying about our motivations. Really, one or the other, it doesn't matter: both options mean you suck.
The pro-federation camp has also repeatedly tried to dishonestly frame the possibility of an admin making an instance block decision with which their users disagree as an example of tyranny.
I think the most obvious response to this line of argument is to point out that the people making it are always using instances which block other instances. They will often say something like "blocking instances just takes choices away from users!" Essentially, they are trying to shift the discussion away from the merits of threads itself, and towards an abstract philosophical argument about blocking in general.
But if they were really against blocking instances at all, they coudl use an instance that doesn't block anyone or anything. And yet, they (usually) don't. That fact indicates that their desire to federate with threads.net isn't based on an abstract opposition to blocking, but based on something about threads.net in particular.
And that's where the conversation should be: why does threads.net deserve preferential treatment that wouldn't be afforded to poa.st or spinster.xyz?
@SallyStrange@183231bcb What are your thoughts on this ‘pro’ argument: that it would be nice to have a one-stop shop where you could follow ppl who are not on both?
@183231bcb@SallyStrange Yeah, I agree. I am so tired of seeing that “admin = tyranny!” argument, usually from people who are perfectly happy to have a completely silent employee or algorithm at some big corporate decide what they should or shouldn’t see. And I think that’s partly the thing: when an admin they can see makes a decision, it’s more “visible” than if (say) Meta does the same. So to them it feels more obvious, and personal.
@SallyStrange Facebook is just handing peoples information over to cops without even consulting attorneys, just because the cops ask for it. Fuck those people
I have two Facebook accounts. One using my real name and another using my stage name (for when I get zucced.)
I use Facebook to stay in touch with my Gen X IRL friends and because without it, the "Dank Memes" part of my handle wouldn't apply. I get all my dank memes from FB.
But considering I have even one FB account, why would I care if kolektiva blocks threads?
I also have known for some time that Twitter is a dumpster fire. It was a dumpster fire way before Musk took it over.
I assume that at some point Twitter will try to federate as well.
@SallyStrange
I know all these things about facebook
But my irl friends are there.
Fb is bad. That's why it would be a good idea to conveyer belt the peoples souls out of it and into the wider fediverse.
I feel it makes sense to block threads on many instances, to protect users
Even though that lessens your exposure
But on gateway instances the, you can conveyer belt people out of threads - from the gateway instances people can for the first time see the diverse userbase behind fedipact etc
Meaning that those geteways will have the most diverse content available
Maybe people will stay on those maybe they eill move further into fedi and away from the mainstream.
When fedi becomes an actual challenger through it's growth- we can hope that it has the critical mass to not be cuttable.
Especially, if people on threads and tumblr would interact.
Big commercial instances that can't cut each other off, like in email.
And then, the final hopr:
That whatever happens, we, the fedi enthusiasts, will stay together despite everything FB pulls to break us apart.
And maybe! Just maybe!
The EU will make Fedi a mandatory condition!
Like they are doing with messenger apps.
I have big dreams to destroy facebook. They are perhaps delusional, but ifeel it's valid to try.
Because as of now, the MAJORITY of the MINORITIES you speak off, are still caught in the crossfire on Fbs networks
@SallyStrange i genuinely find that idea compelling
What do you think?
I still think it makes sense for you to block threads, but i want to recruit my memeing friends
And i think that would only work, by being a gsteway or pointing then to gateways
@SallyStrange
Had this thread ringing in my ears when I tooted that scraping post. The Meta issue really does dovetail right in to the reply guy and racial disparity problems on the fedi, doesn't it?
@ophiocephalic@SallyStrange In fact, when people say "they'll scrape the data anyway," I'd always expected that "scrape the data" statement would be followed by a way these spaces would prevent that from happening, but it never is.
Tech won't save us. I think people are in for a rude awakening and a harsh lesson that social problems (especially the reasons why we left behind Silicon Valley) aren't fucking fixed creating decentralised simulacra thereof or especially by trying to solve social problems with technological solutions.
@SallyStrange The fediverse is open, you're acting like a totalitarian, if you want to be in a network with centralized decisions, you can use X. Attacking those who think differently from you doesn't solve anything, you make the situation worse. This could be an open dialogue, but you decided to be extremists and try to impose your opinion, to hell with that
@nubesurrealista@SallyStrange then stop being a shitty reply guy, your response is the single most useless idiotic thing i've seen in defence of threads in the past 24 hours and that's saying a lot
@apophis@SallyStrange Dude, the fediverse is plural, if you don't like it, mute, that's what I usually do many times, although this won't make those people non-existent
Don't ask for unitary positions in a decentralized, plural network
You seem to have forgotten what the fediverse represents
@SallyStrange@nubesurrealista seriously this "totalitarianism" take is the most fucking shit-for-brains idiot gamer take i've seen in this whole discussion ever
it's like someone defending someone spamming 4chan transphobic wojak cartoons, unedited, unironically, by saying it's satire
or something like obamacare is communism
it's just throwing bullshit inflammatory labels without the slightest scrap of critical thought beyond the most utterly shallow pattern conflation between things you don't like
everything you've contributed really is the most worthless nonsense i've read in this entire discourse
EDIT: in case i get blocked and the context is lost (at least to Mastodon users), here's nubesurrealista's original reply to OP:
> The fediverse is open, you're acting like a totalitarian, if you want to be in a network with centralized decisions, you can use X. Attacking those who think differently from you doesn't solve anything, you make the situation worse. This could be an open dialogue, but you decided to be extremists and try to impose your opinion, to hell with that
and if you think this is mean, tell me so, and I'll tell you about the infantilizing, dehumanizing, and insulting language in which these techbros (for they are, by and large, bros) have communicated these terrible arguments
OK, one argument from the pro-camp I didn't mention goes basically like this:
"You think you're protecting your data from Zuckerberg by blocking #Threads, but Mastodon is public and they'll suck up your data anyway!"
Which is honestly a self-own, because... OK? We were already saying to block them because they have no morals, and you're saying NOT to block them because they have no morals. "It's futile so why try" is a post hoc justification for apathy more than it is a reasoned argument.
Add comment