Hm, yeah I guess no one has been speculating about this part of the de/federate Threads reality. Everyone's worried about Meta and EEE, but what we should have really been discussing is the history of Meta moderation and community guidelines which have often cited "free speech" when people use white supremacist dog whistling but cite "calls to violence" when people of color actively complain about white supremacy.
There's a reason why we have seen news articles about large LEO Facebook groups trading and making joke comments on racist memes...
We were worried about the technology, but we should have been worried about cultural infiltration.
Exactly. What happens when a far-right troll like libsoftiktok sics thousands of rabid followers on a fediverse account? I get the feeling our small, volunteer group of moderators just don't have the resources to cover that kind of brigading.
Also, I don't think moderation can even stop brigading or the downvotes to hell avalanche. It could only stop thread and comment creation on just your one community/magazine on your instance.
Nothing could stop a bad faith actor from finding my comments on a different instance and harassing or brigading me there if that instance federated with Threads, even if my instance defederate from Threads.
Well, at least downvotes isn't going to be much of a problem, as threads users will only be capable of upcoming stuff they see here. They don't have a downvote button. :)
They will be able to send swarms of trolls to harass. If Threads does even federate, I suspect even admins who didn't sign the fedipact will defederate quite fast.
The way the Fediverse is designed you need to actively seek out content. It's not going to be all that easy being a troll from threads attacking content on the Fediverse.
What I could imagine is that bigots might seek out LGTBQIA+ hashtags (along with hashtags related to other culture war dimensions), and find content from the Fediverse that way,
Then again, if that proves to be a problem, sites like Blahaj will probably be pretty darn quick to defederate. And this type of content, even when posted by kbin or Lemmy.world users or whatever, will probably often take place in communities hosted by instances like blahaj. So the thread trolls would find themselves isolated from the discussion pretty fast.
On the other hand, there's a bunch of queer people who use threads. If all servers immediately defederate from it, these people will never get to have a glimpse into the fediverse. They could benefit a lot from joining a different platform, but if we focus only on the bigots we'll end up never reaching them.
The same logic of course applies to other communities affected by the anti woke culture war bullshit, I'm just too lazy to come up with a more original example. :)
That's different though - it's going here and actively creating a user and settling. Interactions with Mastodon users are mostly limited to special interest groups and microblogs I feel, even though we're all in the same network.
So we have the problem of protecting the vulnerable on our instances, while inviting the vulnerable from their instances.
I wonder if we could create Ambassador instances, where you have an account that basically posts to two instances: one that federates to Threads, and one that federates to the rest of the Fediverse.
Facebook's moderation only covers the bare minimum. Simple mention of Hitler can get you banned (even if you're criticizing him), calling all LGBTQ people pedophiles and the likes are de-facto allowed there. Threads' moderation is pretty much the same from what I've heard.
Oh, we haven't been speculating about moderation because that's a known quantity. A major driver of defederarion discussion on the microblogging side of the fedi has been about the moderation issues that people would have to deal with if federated with Threads. And especially about bad actors on Threads getting posts from users on defederated instances via intermediary sites, and then spotlighting vulnerable people to trolls on other instances.
It's why many niche Mastodon instances are talking about defederating from any other site not blocking Threads. It's a significant mental safety risk for vulnerable people in the alt-right's sights.
I'm not an "early adopter" of the Fediverse per se, but I came over on the reddit migration on June 11. I feel like I've been an information sponge trying to wrap my head around the organization of the Fediverse and seeing the benefits. I think I'm pretty up to speed, at least enough to discuss it with people offline and explain it in a way that does it some justice.
But I don't think I've seen a lot of discussion about the drawbacks of the Fediverse. I've seen a few threads about major privacy concerns related to the Fediverse, but most of the comments responding just kind of hand wave the issue.
Seeing a possible larger issue here regarding the moderation issues, I can't see anything other than a total containment of Threads away from other instances. Like, great - use ActivityPub, but don't talk to me (kbin.social) or my child (literally everything else that wants to interact together in the Fediverse with kbin) again. Lol
The thing is, because minority-targeting trolls aren't taken seriously by any corporate social media platform, there's no big downside compared to them. It's just that them showing up here is effectively taking the safer space these communities they've built away from them, returning things to basically how they were just before they fled those other spaces.
They were made safe not due to the tools, but due to obscurity, and they're about to lose that obscurity.
This is... I don't want to call it a "good thing", because people who have suffered many assholes suffering them all over again is in no way, shape, or form good, but it's highlighting an issue that's been clear to these communities, but not to developers on the Fediverse: The moderation tools here are hot, sweaty garbage.
Hopefully we can see serious movement on making useful tools now.
I don't know if you have history on reddit, but the "safety because of obscurity" and having that taken away by increased visibility is absolutely what I lived through as a member of a subreddit called TwoXChromosomes. TwoX was a really welcoming space for women-identifying people to get a breath of fresh air from the constant "equal rights means equal lefts" kind of casual misogyny on the rest of reddit. And then corporate created the "default sub" designation and put TwoX on the list.
I remember the moderators at the time making it very clear to the community that they voiced their dissent but it was happening anyway (wow, what does that sound like?) and now a lot of the posts there get inundated with "not all men" apologists and all the OPs have reddit cares alerts filed on them.
Not disagreeing with your perspective at all, but there at least have been hidden enclaves on platforms like reddit that are not achievable on platforms like Twitter, in which consenting adults could find each other for consenting activities.
You can't do that stuff on Twitter or IG because everything is too out in the open. You can do it on some other websites but they don't have the userbase and broader appeal and legitimacy like reddit had.
Just not sure that there's a way to achieve it in the Fediverse because we're not just talking about the fact that there's a small but hopefully trustworthy group of admins who could wade through everyone's posts and DMs, or surely Google is indexing your comment and post submissions... We're talking about a solicitation of a sensitive nature goes out so much further than you can imagine.
Please know this is not about finding new channels to conduct illegal activity!
@MiscreantMouse from my post and upvote history you can verify that I'm pretty in defensive of Meta federation because I think cutting them off immediately is against the spirit of open protocols. Their poor moderation would be an extremely legitimate reason to defederate. I'm against the defederation pact to fully cut them off before they even enter the fediverse but cutting them off as a pragmatic response to their actual character once they arrive us completely justified.
The thing is, Facebook already exists. We have no reason to believe that they would moderate any differently with Threads. I haven’t been on facebook in 10 years and I don’t want to be there again.
I mean if it gets a bad enough reputation it might not be that much of a problem. If this turns out to be the next Voat rather than the next Twitter then job done.
If all instances defederate it will force people to hand their data over to Zuckerberg to access the bigger network, and they will have no control over what shite the algorithm pushes into their timeline.
There’s a very good case for some instances to defederate. All of them defederating would be a terrible mistake.
There is no strategical alliance to be made with Meta. That company literally complicitly hosted the platform for a genovide to be planned.. There is no outsmarting, strategic federating or any sudden interest on their side involved. Its all a plot to wring people out in the most heinous way they can get away with.
What exactly would any fediverse user be getting out of this? Why would Meta have any interest in giving us anything, even attention?
Do I have to write “Meta is evil” as a preface to every comment?
Meta does not need the Fediverse. In terms of user numbers, we’re a rounding error. It has no need to embrace in order to extinguish. Pootling about on your high horse demanding the Fediverse become a monolith (FFS) will do absolutely nothing to stop them.
If the Fediverse universally defederates it will force millions of users who want/need a larger network to hand their data over to Meta and the Fediverse will die for everyone who wasn’t on it before October 2022.
There are no good choices here. But there are some absolutely daft ones.
I was trying to say that you arent being creative enough in imagining the awful plans they might have for federation. There is no winning with Meta. The best move is not to play.
Meta does not need the Fediverse. In terms of user numbers, we’re a rounding error. It has no need to embrace in order to extinguish.
Companies arent actually that rational in this regard. I completely agree that the fediverse is not a threat in any possible meaning of that word, but that doesnt mean Meta wouldnt like to have its feelers on us or destroy the protocol.
If the Fediverse universally defederates it will force millions of users who want/need a larger network to hand their data over to Meta and the Fediverse will die for everyone who wasn’t on it before October 2022.
Defederation just means that Threads is blocked from viewing/interacting with fediverse servers. Right now, Threads is deferated (because it cant interact), but simply because they havent set it up yet. People can still learn about the fediverse and join up whenever they want. I dont think I understand your point.
Defederation just means that Threads is blocked from viewing/interacting with fediverse servers. Right now, Threads is deferated (because it cant interact), but simply because they havent set it up yet. People can still learn about the fediverse and join up whenever they want. I dont think I understand your point.
My point is that the Fediverse is growing because of exiles from Twitter and Reddit. The vast majority of those users want/need a bigger network than is currently available on the Fediverse to get the breadth and depth of content that was on those sites.
If all instances defederate, then many of those users will reluctantly hand their data over to Zuckerberg instead. The vast majority of them already have through Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp etc.
Meta might well want to murder us but universal defederation is just committing suicide instead. It’s the wrong tactic.
My hope is that Threads sticks with a shitty algorithmic feed and bombards people with corporate bullshit, and its users find out that independent instances exist and will give them more control.
My other hope is that other mega-corps (Google, Mozilla, etc) open up their own instances and end up holding each other hostage because it’s so easy for their users to jump ship to a competitor.
It’s a difficult situation to be sure but universal defederation is giving up without a fight.
The vast majority of those users want/need a bigger network than is currently available on the Fediverse to get the breadth and depth of content that was on those sites.
Disclaimer, i havent used Threads. But everything i've seen from it was just influencer spam, grifting and corporate twitter. I dont think i want that kind of content. Quite the opposite, this is the reason i chose the fediverse.
My hope is that Threads sticks with a shitty algorithmic feed and bombards people with corporate bullshit, and its users find out that independent instances exist and will give them more control.
Why would anyone sign up for those instances if they can just look at that stuff from Threads? Furthermore, it would actually make things more difficult, because explaining the fediverse to people that are coming from a corporate social media but that have already had fediverse content is just going to turn them away. It would be far more comfortable for them to just continue using threads.
Thirdly, it would also influence the federated instances. All the influencer spam and brand bs thats going on over there would also end up on the fediverse.
And lastly, we dont have to win over every user and every bit of content. The fediverse isnt some VC funded social media that requires unlimited growth. If there is nothing good to grow into, it can just stay the size it is and be fine. I dont get the constant arguments for growth if the new content would be the worst social media can offer and the users would be facebook tier grifters.
I dont think i want that kind of content. Quite the opposite, this is the reason i chose the fediverse.
That's your personal preference. What you call spam others may call content. I expect if your favorite personality / organization / news-provider joined Threads and started posting content there that you don't consider "spam" then it being in Threads would be an annoyance.
I believe kbin doesn't have it yet, but some fediverse platforms offer the option to block a particular instance from your feed without limiting everyone else. So that would be an alternative. Even if by default it added Threads in the blocklist of everyone.
I expect you do see some value on federation (seeing how you seem to be participating in some communities beyond your home instance), so I think the question "why would anyone sign up if they can just use Threads" would answer itself if you don't assume everyone shares your preference.
And it's perfectly fine if those people turned away by the fediverse don't join. Personally, I don't think we should be trying to get everyone to join at all costs or anything like that.
I simply dont see how the fediverse would gain from this. The core of my argument remains that Meta doesnt do things "just because" or because they are "interested" in activitypub. There is no altruism behind this, far from it. And when Meta gains, we loose.
What you call spam others may call content.
Im not stopping anyone from using whatever social media they want, I simply dont want my social media filled with influencer spam, brand social media and grifting. And no, this is not hypocritical, because this:
I believe kbin doesn't have it yet, but some fediverse platforms offer the option to block a particular instance from your feed without limiting everyone else.
Is simply a pipe dream. Sure, Twitter allows you to only interact with people you want to on a superficial level, but in reality every bigger tweet you look at will be filled with blue checkmark people selling NFT boner pills or something. And no, blocking an instance wont fix the problem, only make it slightly better. Grifters arent known for respecting the "do not talk to me about unsolicited ads" and other fediverse servers will just become a new grifting target until all you do is block people.
I think the question "why would anyone sign up if they can just use Threads" would answer itself if you don't assume everyone shares your preference.
I made the choice to learn about federation. This isnt me being elitist, federated social media simply is harder to understand. But a lot of people have no interest or time to learn about it, which is completely fine. So obviously they are going to stay at the centralized social media platform where content is served through a laser focus target tested algorithm, which i cant blame them for.
Honestly, Meta never has good intentions so i dont really see a reason to defend my position. If you want to convince me about why we should federate with Meta, make some good arguments.
White supremacists are like that guy nobody ever wants at their party but who always invites himself anyway. It's hard enough to keep him from washing his balls in the punch bowl when you're actively trying to keep him out. Meta doesn't even try except to the meager extent required by law.
Yes, bigots are bad. And if you see a bigot on the internet, you don't have to click on their profile or view anything they put out into the void...And it is a void by the way, the amount of people that their content appeals to is a very small number of people.
So what's the harm in them having a platform if hardly anyone will even pay attention to them?
dealing with someone who physically shows up to your place unwanted and uninvited isn't the same thing as allowing them to tweet mean things.
I think I get what you're saying, and there was a time when I would've agreed. I spent more years than I care to admit on 4chan, years I wouldn't have spent if I didn't think there was some value to people expressing their opinions no matter what they were. But...I dunno man, it's not a ton of people, but I wouldn't call it a "very small" number of people. Also the issue I'm getting at isn't that they have a platform, it's that if you let them they will try to make every platform their platform. And if it's an organized group they will do so in an organized way that is not the same as Uncle Ted cocking off about immigrants again or whatever.
You're correct that you don't have to look at their profile, any more than you have to drink the pube punch. The issue isn't that I had to see the words of meanies. The issue is that allowing white supremacists to use your platform a) makes it look like the platform condones such things, which reflects both on the platform and the other users, which may cause the non-extremist users to leave if it gets bad enough, this tipping the balance of users more in the extremists' favor; and b) encourages people who agree with them. And the number of people who think certain people shouldn't have rights doesn't have to be very big for them to decide to organize and do something about it, including egging others on.
Also you mentioned tweets, so I should apologize for not clarifying before. When expressing concern over extremists inviting themselves, I was not thinking about Twitter so much as I was thinking about the fediverse. I'm more concerned with what people are trying to build here than with whatever it is they're doing at Twitter these days. Elon's gonna Elon and we can't control that. We can, though, choose what company we keep here.
Its just free speech that nobody has to listen to, right? Lemmy has no ads anyways so what if there’s some nonsense mixed in? I doubt it would outnumber the people who want good content to prevail.
EXACTLY! All of these people complaining about bigots "everywhere" where are they? I don't know, because I've never gone looking for them and I've never clicked on any of their profiles. The only time I ever hear what bigots say is through the filter of people making fun of them and de-bunking their arguments.
For all the people that downvoted me. CLICK AWAY FROM THE THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE. No one's making you look at it!
Supporting free speech means allowing people you hate to talk too. Censor a Nazi one day, then the next day it's something your weird friend likes, then the next day it's something you like.
Everyone deserves a platform online, but they have to earn their audience. Censoring them is only going to make more people want to go to other platforms to hear and see what they have to say.
That's just common misconception. Free speech is there to protect people from the government, not business. If my anti-racism voice gets suppressed on Threads (assuming I ever make an account there) I'd just move to another platform.
And really, there's no good reason for a well-intended internet community to allow racism expand.
How many racists have a big audience? And I mean openly, explicitly racist. Not the dog-whistle racism from Fox news.
People have been censored by automated systems for just criticizing racists. Yes, that means that all the people who call them out for being shitty get censored too.
It doesn't mean you have to give them the platform, though. If they want to create their own Nazi federation that's entirely on them, but you don't have to integrate their content.
I am not required to respect "free speech" when it comes from a place of fundamental dishonesty. Slander is not protected speech. They are within their rights to bitch and complain about whatever non-issue they're up in arms about today and I'm within my rights to ban and ignore them.
They are, notably, NOT within their rights to call for violence and death against LGBTQ+ folks, which many are doing, because that constitutes hate speech, assault, or even inciting a riot, depending on which particular situation you find yourself being a bigot in. All three of these are illegal and are not protected speech.
Tolerance of intolerance is not a paradox, it is a failing of the people who are supposed to be protecting their communities. Tolerance of Nazis and racism are not required by the tenets of the Constitution or by the tenets of democracy and instead actively erode the protections enshrined within each.
You're right, Slander isn't protected speech. But to prove that it's slander, you need to prove that it damaged you and you need to prove that it was said with malicious intent. You also need to prove that the statement isn't true.
Who's going to take an actual nazi seriously when they have their stupid little protests against jewish people? Not that many...at least not once they find out that they're a nazi.
The right to free speech is drawn from a US constitutional amendment, which says the US government can't censor speech, but it has nothing to do with private platforms like this, much less individual responses to Nazi rhetoric. Nobody owes hate speech a free platform.
It’s mostly about the government not arresting you for what you say. It doesn’t protect you from the consequences of saying hateful things in a public space. Say something racist in an area largely populated by the race you’re talking about and you’re likely to get kicked, post some right wing misinformation in an online space that is largely left-leaning and you’re likely to have your post deleted. Neither of those things infringe on anyone’s right to free speech because other people also have the right to not want to listen to Nazis or racists or TERFS etc.
such a slippery slope! supporting free speech means allowing people to talk about how much they want queer people dead, too. tell the people calling for violence against queer people to fuck off, and maybe one day your very own calls for violence might get told to fuck off!
everybody deserves a platform to call for the extermination of people groups, but they have to earn their audience 😏. i think we should do absolutely nothing to stop them, because doing anything just makes them stronger anyways. /s
Disagree. Being absolutist with free speech because we can't trust bad faith actors to honor boundaries is not going to work, because they don't care about their own hypocrisy.
Advocating genocide is a beyond free speech. And that's what nazi ideology, and fascism in general, do.
I guess I just assumed that that was commonly understood, As soon as I saw that it was going to be run according to Facebook's moderation standards, I took that to mean that it was going to be tailored to suit white supremacists and Christian nationalists, like Facebook.
Back when I used facebook, I barely ever saw any bigots...mainly because I never went looking for that kind of content on any website I've ever been to.
The real reason why Facebook sucks is because they collect literally everything they can about your entire life, they look through your files on your local storage. And if you block any of their spying, they'll want to see your ID and SSN.
There's bigots on every platform. Have you ever read any youtube comment sections ever?
Your activity on this thread implies you have a vested interest in downplaying Facebook's bias. I'm not sure why...
Anyway - of course there are bigots on every platform, and of every stripe for that matter. The internet has enabled bigotry on a scale never before imagined, and the steady slide of much of modern civilization, and the US and UK (and lately Canada) in particular, toward overtly corrupt overt plutocracy has left more people than ever desperate for some way to assure themselves that everything wrong with the world is somebody else's fault, which makes bigotry a growing enterprise.
But while bigotry is ever-present, each individual site has its own expressed bias for the particular forms it's more or less likely to at least tolerate, if not actively encourage.
And Facebook's expressed bias is toward white supremacism and Christian nationalism.
I mean… I wasn’t expecting this to not happen eventually… I’m just surprised it happened so quickly, and that Meta has done nothing in terms of mitigation - and moreover, didn’t see this as a thing they’d need to guard against out of the gates (unless, I suppose, this isn’t intended to be a Twitter clone, and it’s more shooting for being a Parler clone).
There’s probably a lesson somewhere in there about the benefits of growing your userbase organically instead of trying to force-march users over by creating shadow accounts, but applying that lesson would be unprofitable, so Meta definitely won’t care.
I am confused. Where did I give you the impression that I was a fan of Meta?
I’m not disagreeing with you. They’re a psychotic, metastasized, late stage capitalism total surveillance nightmare. Everything they touch gets corrupted.
That is fair. I would guess a lot of those people might start using it anyway. Because they made it easy. They already have a huge platform, so getting people to adopt it should be fairly easy.
I fail to believe a company that is so focused on being in line to whatever is politically correct, would allow Nazis onto their platform. HELL I don’t believe ANY social media that wants a good rep would allow Nazis. They must be getting angry at people for having an opinion and jumping straight to “THEIR A FUCKING NAZI!”
I did not read the article just the title so I don’t even know why I’m commenting.
Add comment