I’m seeing a lot of people badmouthing Facebook/Meta and saying we shouldn’t federate with Threads.
Mastodon.social is owned by Mastodon gGmbH and run by the author of Mastodon. Mastodon.social federates with Threads. If Facebook/Meta were toxic, do you think they would? Of course, not.
Facebook/Meta has Mastodon’s author’s (& the original Mastodon server’s) seal of approval. So you should all shush because clearly you’re mistaken.
@aral At worse, you could consider the "Threads instance" to have lackluster moderation coming from Meta/Facebook.
And either way, THANKS TO THE MAGIC OF THE FEDIVERSE :fediverse:. You can block the threads instance globally by yourself to not see their content in your feed :)
@dusnm I can’t bully the largest Mastodon instance in the world to do anything. Bullying is what the powerful do to the weak, not the other way around.
@dusnm Again, you’re conflating calling out the largest mastodon instance and the CEO of Mastodon gGmbH for legitimising a known bad actor and exposing vulnerable people on mastodon.social to Facebook/Meta with “bullying”.
Maybe consider what the power dynamics really are here and whether or not you’re punching up or punching down.
@aral Harsh - I don't think people should federate with threads. Meta has over and over again abused its market position to make money. The only difference I would say is that people should do a per person block of threads.net
Yes Meta is toxic. Yes Meta is bad. The sheer amount of lawsuits make that clear. If people don't federate then threads will make its own way in the world. Meta don't need federation it is just a way to make more money and abuse their power
@3dcandy So fediverse servers should help them make more money and abuse their power by federating with them? I’m not sure I follow.
And, anyway, you must be wrong. Meta can’t be toxic or bad or else Mastodon gGmbH wouldn’t treat them as friends. Unless you’re saying they don’t care that they’re toxic or bad. But that’s… unthinkable.
@aral of course they don't care it's called choice. That is why I advocate a per person block and is also why they federate. The tools are there so use them. When a platform has several ways to achieve the same thing and you can also choose an instance that does or does not block these choices are powerful.
@aral but we should also give them the choice....
This is why I advocate a per person block. The choices are there, it is up to people to be educated about the choice of instance. This is a core feature - join an instance that aligns with what YOU want and go from there. It is a whole different way of thinking...
There is no right or wrong way here. But saying that a platform is OK because of a choice made by someone is very counter-productive when the whole ecosystem made choices to help this
@simon_lucy@aral Yes, because expecting 10 million users all to react to the decisions taken by a few to partner up with a Genocide-supportive, Misinformation-spreading, privacy eroding, toxic monster is a fair and equitable way of handling this.
That description could apply to any social network because it's made up of people and some aren't particularly pleasant.
So yes it is exactly how to handle it, on an individual basis with individual responsibility. Or are you suggesting that individuals should not have that opportunity?
@simon_lucy@aral That you can equate Meta to ""people who aren't particularly pleasant"" is hilarious.
All day every day on the Fedi we see examples of Corporations abrogating their responsibilities by shunting them at users. This decision by the Mastodon author and others falls into the same ballpark. You don't aim a gigantic firehose of harm at the Fediverse and tell users it's on them to react to it. It's a complete betrayal of the principles the Fediverse is built upon.
Trans people have already suffered abuse from Threads. That harm is the direct responsibility of those who welcomed Meta with a red carpet, or are you suggesting those users brought that on themselves by not acting fast enough?
You may find it hilarious, I find it the sanest approach to all social networks not just one.
It sounds like you want a walled garden, which do exist but I wouldn't tell you you have to do that. If you have a federated service then any platform that can technically federate can.
What happens after that is down to the interaction of users and instances. Prejudice, even if you believe that other evidence is sufficient for you, isn't for me reason to tell others what to do.
Walled Garden? Now you're being ridiculous, and creating criticisms out of thin air.
While we can technically Federate with anyone, there are some we really shouldn't. We can technically federate with paedophile servers; are you suggesting admins should and let users decide if that's ok for them? That they should drop the blocklists against those and spam and troll-farms to give users "the opportunity" to protect themselves? I guarantee you wouldn't.
It would only be "prejudice" if I couldn't back up my risk-assesment of Meta as a harmful entity with reams of freely available evidence. Frankly, it's on you to explain why support of genocide and even recent revelations about using a VPN as deliberate spyware is apparently fine in your books. I auestion your ability to evaluate with user safety in mind.
And let me just fart on that last nonsensical assertion; this is not me telling anyone 'what to do'. People who can't adequately express concern for their fellow users don't get to peacock their principles.
It's not up to me to justify anything. I haven't said anything about instance blocklists, instances blocking others.
I do take issue with users that tell other users what they should and should not do and who they should not associate with. It was you that replied to my comment to the original post.
Telling people that they should leave a particular set of instances (which was not directed at you) is not expressing concern.
I won't concern myself with your assumptions of me.
Allow me to explain: The point of discussing blocklists was to demonstrate that, contrary to your earlier statement of 'let users apply the blocks', you already accept conditions where that responsibility is handled at a higher level than at the User level. Admins pride themselves on maintaining and applying them - not just because they can think themselves technically capable, but for reasons of user safety. They take on that responsibility on behalf of their users.
Now contrast with Masto going gung ho to accept Meta federation. Why is connection that that extremely harmful entity not receiving the same care and consideration? Why is that responsibility being shunted down to the users?
To address your other point, advising users that they may be safer on other servers CAN be a statement of concern if you can demonstrate the potential for real harm. I've seen reverse commentary too; people upset with Meta being told they have the option to move if they don't like it. (Are you also on those people not to tell others what to do, or just when the argument goes against the way you agree with?) I mean, they do, but why should they have to?
Meta won't moderate the way most Fediverse servers do. And now we have Mastodon.social unable/unwilling to abide by its own code of conduct for troublesome servers by not shutting off harm coming from the Meta server that won't moderate itself properly. The Fedi was built first and foremost to protect users, and not only is federating with Meta going against that, but it's now apparently putting Fedi servers in breach of that also.
You appear to want people to handle symptoms rather than address the root cause.
Well there's considerable irrelevancy in all of that.
I have made one point only. Telling users of other instances to leave those instances because it's prejudged to be harmful without pointing out that if they care individually they can block any instance themselves individually is just politics.
When a new instance of any platform is created it can attempt to federate with others. When it's a new platform the same thing happens.
@simon_lucy@aral YOU raised the "telling others what to do" issue here beneath a OP discussing something else entirely, and you've the cheek to talk to ME about irrelevancy?
Go away, Simon, and stop wasting people's time. Feel entirely free to ignore Aral in future if you're unable to resist the lure of an attack-comment.
I chose to argue with your words, the point you introduced. See those words there? Your words? That's what I responded to. You don't want responses to 'em, don't put 'em in a post.
Add comment