So I want to leave .social for a better server that doesn't federate with Threads, but the ones on the fedipact website either actually do federate with Threads anyway (looking at you mas.to) or they're invite-only. :(
@tokyo_0@trumpet I signed up for an account there and the other users warned me that's what was going on. I deleted my mas.to account promptly afterwards. 🤷
@pinkdrunkenelephants Did you try searching for any Threads content before you did? I don't see any. I think you might have been misinformed by these "other users". @trumpet
@tokyo_0@pinkdrunkenelephants@trumpet I saw posts related to this. Initially mas.to blocked Threads but later changed this to limited. And lists could be not updated after this :/
@madargon Is that something you experienced directly? It doesn't seem to match what @trumpet has said. I'm curious as to where these odd ideas have come from.
@madargon@tokyo_0@pinkdrunkenelephants Hello there! mas.to still currently blocks Threads. We’ve posted about how we could theoretically move to limiting with Authorized Fetch enabled and per-user blocks in place, but we haven’t changed anything so far.
@tokyo_0 What I posted is a proposal that I think might be the best compromise to protect those who don't want to interact with Threads, while allowing those who do the ability to connect. Still looking into the technical aspects of it.
@trumpet Idealogically, as well, if people accept interacting with Meta products (because right now Meta wants to make that appealing), it makes this whole Fediverse concept meaningless. What's the point of building a decentralised alternative social network system if we just allow the same known bad actors to destroy it the way they do all other competition. Not everyone understands that yet, but that doesn't (at all) mean it isn't what's going to happen. I don't want to be any part of that.
@trumpet There are issues with the "limit/user-block" approach and the risk of the compromise is that it actually just ends up not meeting anyone's needs. It's being pushed by central Mastodon development, who have been having non-disclosed meetings with Meta and who are accepting development help from people compromised by links with Meta. It weakens the oversight structure that keeps instances accountable to communities and keeps the whole Fediverse healthy. It's a very destructive "solution".
@trumpet Something that could work is setting up an alternative instance—one federating with Threads and the other not—so they run as separate entities but are run under the same administration as mas.to right now. There might be a small overhead, but with the same total number of users a lot of the costs should be similar. It may be possible to migrate people at a database level so they don't have to do it themselves. But there are already plenty of instances that federate with Threads.
Add comment