@feditips No, we don't need to defederate them. Defederating them undermines federation and makes it harder for people to leave Threads.
Federation is about helping people, not corporations. That's why almost all social networks refuse to federate, even "the good guys" like Tumblr. They know damned well that federation provides an escape route for their users, and they don't want that.
Meta is doing this not because it benefits from it, but because it sees the writing on the wall, it sees the EU and other organizations forcing monopoly social networks to open up.
If a user on your instance wants to follow someone on Threads, let them. Almost everyone who wants to leave Threads will find it easier to leave if they can continue to follow the people of interest to them.
Don't underestimate this. This is why, despite Musk's sabotage, people are still on X/Twitter. Because if they leave, they leave the circle of friends they've made over the years behind.
@feditips
Fully agree, and am glad to say our instance admin did this months ago when the concerns first surfaced. I saw a good write-up from another instance recently regarding meta's track record, and hadn't even considered that private posts would pass through their servers if federation occured. Meta certainly isn't going to play nice with us, and if we give them anything, they will try to take everything. https://about.scicomm.xyz/doku.php?id=blog:2023:0625_meta_on_the_fediverse_to_block_or_not_to_block
@feditips Isn’t this what we want? For all major social media to federate with each other using an open standard? A big company takes the first big step towards this, and now we suddenly don’t want federation with them anymore?
"Facebook will continue to offer a platform to Holocaust deniers, Infowars, and other publishers of hoaxes on the assumption that they are sincere in their beliefs, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said."
i despise Facebook. but this is a dangerous take. advocating that server admins take away user's power to make the decision for themself is wrong. we are independent safe spaces, and existing along side Threads is no different than my self-hosted email server existing along side Gmail.
using a powerful tool like censorship must be done responsibly, otherwise you are behaving just like the authoritarian that you are rebelling against.
this is not to be confused with boycotting, which you should consider. folks can boycott by not engaging, or "limiting" a server, not defederating. defederaing is not going to hurt Threads.
there are a lot of good people who use Facebook products. it sucks, i know. but they are there, and committing censorship is only going to prevent those awesome people from becoming aware of the wider Fediverse, and potentially making it impossible for those awesome people to become immigrants to a better server (aka, to a better country).
i don't like building walls to solve problems, when the problems have to do with a very large body of people who are disproportionately negatively affected by something like censorship. arguably, in my opinion, censoring Facebook is like building a wall between the US and Mexico. that is dangerous thinking.
Facebook banning sex workers is a form of censorship. why would we then, in turn, treat Facebook by doing the very same thing that is bad to begin with?
in my opinion, Facebook is not invading the Fediverse. We are invading Facebook. it's not clear what policies and procedures Facebook will do in response to engagement they don't like. AFAIK they may censor entire servers that they don't like. So, the trash is taking itself out?
if we do not want Facebook to "ruin the Fediverse", then be here. be a part of a healthy Fediverse. bridges, not walls.
@WhyNotZoidberg 🤣🤦 nothing about it is fascist. This only benefits the Fediverse and hurts Meta. Would you like to answer the question or just hurl insults at people who disagree with you?
@AudraTran Nobody has an obligation to federate with anyone. If you want to federate with meta, be on an instance that has chosen to do so.
I don't want anything to do with Meta; I quit facebook and Instagram years ago, why on earth should I read posts from Threads? I have actively avoided them for three years now.
That said, people who know about the human rights violations and still support them obviously also support human rights violations.
@WhyNotZoidberg I am not telling anyone what to do. The original poster I replied to is. I just asked a question. If you don't have an answer to the question, feel free not to reply to me.
Nobody is advocating for supporting Meta. Quite the opposite, really.
@AudraTran The answer to your question is: Your question only makes sense if you are some sort of Freeze Peas absolutist who think it is everybody's right to be heard by everybody and that nobody should have the right to say "no, I do not want anything to do with you because I hate what you stand for".
The "act of federating" here is the same as standing and listening to the campaigning Nazi on the square. I don't want to listen to him, so I do not let him communicate with me.
@WhyNotZoidberg Problem is at least half of these users have nothing to do with Fascism. Maybe the company is facsist, but that doesn't mean everyone who uses its products are fascist.
@AudraTran@feditips For now, I'm going to try to stay on an instance that will federate with threads.net, but if an instance thinks defederation is the best way to serve/protect their users, they should do so.
Sometimes a "net split" is the healthiest solution. Intolerance cannot be tolerated, if we are to preserve tolerance.
@AudraTran Tolerating intolerance can happen over any information transfer mechanism.
I don't think any of the accounts covered by the current Threads beta has been intolerant, but I have heard there are intolerant organizations with a current presence of Threads.
Federation that included transferring their intolerance would be tolerating intolerance.
@feditips@skykiss My server administrator at mstdn.social just unilaterally opened us up to #Threads the list of instances blocking threads is not up to date is there an updated link?
The main FediPact list is at https://fedipact.online/ but unfortunately it's not organised into any kind of categories. There are public instances and single user instances mixed together in a big list.
(Hopefully something better will appear soon, just working on something at moment but can't promise anything yet.)
Sort of, but it won't be as effective as a server defederation.
Users blocking a server basically just hides stuff from that server, and removes any follows you have from that server. It's more like closing your eyes to them than actually restricting them.
You can do a "domain block" by clicking on the profile of a person from that server, then clicking ︙ on their profile, and then "block domain".
@feditips Gatekeeping are we? They haven't even really federated yet, and you are already calling for a boycott. If an individual wishes to block them, then they can.
@blogoklahoma@feditips I don't like the idea of Threads federating and plan to block their server(s) on my personal account, but it seems a bit extreme to block Blog Oklahoma for expressing an opinion.
i can block anyone i like for any reason. it's called boundaries and consent. if i don't want to read one more fascist chud complain about freeze peach, i block them. that's what this is really about. fascist chuds want their frozen peaches, we make them cry.
@angiebaby@feditips I did accuse them of gatekeeping. They might have taken that badly.
I don't think Threads should be blocked at all. Everyday users there have nothing to do with Meta. If you want to block, your choice, and I stand by your decision.
I've been blocked before and will be again. Mostly from RWNJs. Some people just can't hear different opinions.
@blogoklahoma@feditips I was looking for this earlier. This was the other reason. The Threads TOS states that by engaging with Threads content through a third party service, you are granting Threads permission to collect your data. ("Such as" is not all-inclusive of the data they plan to collect).
They have to collect your data to display your data to the other users. Your name, profile picture, inbox/outbox link for ActivityPub, etc. All need to be stored. Works the same here on Mastodon. Your meta info is stored on the instance's server.
Yes, Meta could mine that database with your meta info. The same can be said for any unscrupulous Mastodon server owner. They have full access to your meta data.
@angiebaby@feditips
This doesn't lessen any privacy concerns for anyone. How and with whom you share your info should still be left to you. (Especially location data, block that. 🙂)
Ah, but what do I know? I'm just one egg in the pack of dozen stacked with the others left on the pallet still in the back of the truck waiting for the night shift to unload.
Add comment