@folkerschamel Most likely it's manually, I see some instances - f.e. chaos.social - tagged wrong.
Given #threads does shady shit already, allowing #fediverse users to follow people on Threads but not the other way around (someone thinking XMPP? Yeah…) this low number is a really bad sign. I hope this network somehow survives when Meta eventually pulls off whatever they're planing.
@me_the_fl00f@folkerschamel The bigger servers that block might see an influx of people looking for protection. @stux and @trumpet hopefully got enough resources available.
Every user can easily block #threads on their own, also including instances which don't block. Meaning, instance which don't block give users a choice.
Vice versa this is not possible. If you are on an instance which is blocking, then you are locked in. The admins are censoring for the users. Which may be the preference for some.
@folkerschamel@me_the_fl00f@stux@trumpet You're missing the point. If you're on an instance that doesn't block #threads, your data will flow towards Meta. Your interactions on the Local timeline will be filled with people you could block - but if you do then for what purpose, given the data flows anyway? You can only block what you see, but not the networking effects.
@folkerschamel@me_the_fl00f@stux@trumpet@Gargron I know that blogpost and it's absolute buffoonery. Should Threads cut the ties Mastodon would not be exactly where is is before, too many social connection would be severed. Eugen utterly overestimates Mastodons "brand recognition", especially regarding AP. The moderation part is hot nonsense, without a tool to federate moderative decisions about threads users masto admins will be blasted with work as Threads does not properly moderate!
The social connections would be severed as before, meaning as now.
How much moderators of a server have to moderate does not depend on the size of the other servers like #threads, but the size of their own server, because the number of posts from other servers does not depend on the size of the other servers, but on the number of threads users of their instance are participating in. #threads won't make moderating worse than it is now.
Of course, as larger an instance as more moderation work for that instance.
What I mean is that moderators of a small instance don't have to moderate the full #threads content, but only the tiny fraction of what is coming to their server due to their users interacting with #thread users.
@folkerschamel@Natanox@me_the_fl00f@Gargron@trumpet@stux Sorry, but that's a short-sighted view in to things. What do you think happens when the instance software fills in a thread? There should be much more coming in to an instance than just direct relationship posts. Hence, the possibility and likelihood for much more for an instance to moderate than just the direct follow connections that have been made.
First of all the moderation of @Gargron instance is a horror. If I check the logfile of my Honk instance then there are so many dead accounts from there. Not only that, they have moderation problems (spam accounts) in general. As you tag @stux he is one of the admins -- from his own instances -- whom you can catch always and who cares.
So, sure you can block #Threads on user level but if you do not block them at network level they can harvest (public) data. Why is it censorship if a admin decides to block Threads ... was there a Mastodon update to force users to be not longer allowed to switch the instance ? If yes, then we have to see Mastodon as a walled garden.
Mastodon has a problem caused through his lead developer. He promoted the Mastodon Network as the only fedi and did not care about other projects. The thing is, other fedi projects did not need Mastodon even it is the software with the most accounts. Mastodon also wants to grow. So, what will happen. Mastodon could go the way to grow with Threads and so on or the other way the old school fedi goes. Instance level blocks against Meta services are rolled out since long. And the next step will probably be, that the instances who did not block Meta service get blocked from them who block them ... FediBlock will be back.
Lets nail it down, the old fedi is not interested in Meta, BlueSky, Trump, X and whatever. The fedi will continue to exist, as one thing or as fragmented.
@me_the_fl00f@Gargron@stux@trumpet@folkerschamel I assume as fragmented part, given the most reasonable tactic for Meta to follow is to take over control of the Protocol.
Eugen seriously believes the AP protocol is his baby, but once Meta wants to have control they'll first create unreasonable pull requests, then (if denied) argue that the gGmbH is "hindering innovation" and fork it, creating "Enhanced AP". Anything new and good on AP will be copied by EAP, software either coerced into …
Once over a certain threshold Meta will stop supporting AP altogether, slowly letting anyone refusing to support EAP alone ("It's Open-Source, riiight? See, we're the good guys!" <-- same what Google did with Chromium, now they begin dictating standards). Eventually "AP Classic" will be seen as legacy code and abandoned by the now too …
The fact Eugen thinks of Embrace-Extend-Extinguish as unlikely only shows how blinded he is by either his vision (which might be a good one but apparently doesn't include evil actors) or by his own achievements (which also doesn't include other software or even other "default servers" as it seems, the Mastodon app has yet to be fixed).
@Natanox@Gargron@stux@trumpet@folkerschamel It is not relevant whether these screenshots are real or not. Meta will contact the decision makers of the community and kindly ask them to cooperate because it is for the good of the community. Eugen has to play along, on the one hand because he has no chance against Meta, on the other hand because otherwise the community will be against him (well, quite a few of them already are) and he has already invested too much money in his company.
I think Meta will do the same with the protocol as with WhatsApp. The original protocol will remain and their own will simply be upgraded and made incompatible with the original. They don't want to take it over because otherwise they would dominate the market again.
You can see this in the fact that you need an Instagram account to change your Threads profile, and the community and especially those who have recently joined the Fediverse welcome the federation. Those who have always been there are in their own bubble anyway.
I find it remarkable that some people seem to believe that @Gargron of all people has switched to the dark side. In the end, they are the only ones left to fight heroically against the rest of the world for the true good in the world.😉
@folkerschamel@me_the_fl00f@Gargron@stux@trumpet Nobody thinks he switched to the dark side (or at least not most of people as far as I read). A lot of people simply think he's behaving naive / ignorant / egocentric / foolish in general. And I absolutely think they're correct, he is.
I find it remarkable that some people seem to believe that @Gargron of all people is naive, ignorant, egocentric, foolish and dumb. In the end, they are the only ones left who are smart, enlightened, selfless fighting heroically against the rest of the world for the true enlightenment in the world.
@folkerschamel@me_the_fl00f@Gargron@stux@trumpet Trying to frame critics as hypocrites, eh? How pitiful. If you have any proof Meta is to be trusted and they won't do what big companies in this situation always do, despite a metric ton of evidence that proof otherwise, then show it! Otherwise you're only making an enormous fool out of yourself.
I just think @Gargron has a great vision to break down the barriers between social networks and create something great. That's why I'm surprised (and saddened) by the negative attitude towards him.
And I trust people’s judgment. If you're convinced that interacting with people on #Threads is a bad idea, convince people instead of patronizing them with artificial technical limitations.
@folkerschamel@me_the_fl00f@Gargron@stux@trumpet This isn't against Eugen but his naive take on Meta. And to be completely honest… I have no clue how you can look at things and still believe that people's judgement, especially on a large scale, is anything to go by. Meta got an enormous (marketing / algor.) machine to convince and manipulate people into thinking whatever is most convenient, believing anyone of us would be able to reason against that is, sorry, the absolute zenith of naivety.
In other words, in your view, other people are just part of a naiv herd that doesn't know what they're doing, and so they should give up their freedom for their own benefit in order to be guided instead by smart people like you who understand what's really going on?
@folkerschamel no negative attitude against @Gargron , we're all here thanks to his vision and he's free to manage its mastodon community as he considers appropriate.
But EVERY community should be free to stick to its principles.
As admin of a community that made an explicit nonviolent choice, I feel some negative attitude in people calling "patronizing with artificial technical limitation" our free choice of non-cooperation with an evil corp accountable for genocide in Burma according to UN.
@folkerschamel@Gargron behind our community there is a pacifist association sticking to some basic principles like not collaborating with evil corps. Behind Mastodon.social there is Mastodon gGmbH, a non-profit from Germany. Both this organisations can (and must) act according to their principles, trusting the decisions of the board of directors to move towards these principles. People following other principles can migrate on other communities or self-host.
@folkerschamel@Gargron the argument is “EVERY COMMUNITY should be free to act accordingly to their principles”, it’s the same logic used by the dev community of Mastodon to deny the “quote toot” function for years, because we should talk WITH people and not talk OF other people. Thanks to this choice I overcome my dependence from that function and I don’t feel the need to use it even now that was introduced. The logic of individualism is not less flawed.
@gubi@Gargron
So your argument is that imposing your will on others is good because you are convinced that at some later point they will see that you have been right and thank you for it?
@folkerschamel@Gargron my argument is that I’m not imposing anything, and every community member owns their data and they are free to migrate on any other platform, but I am responsible of the good use of the funds of a pacifist association, and we won’t pay for the storage of a big amount of federation data coming from an evil company accountable for Genocide in Burma, monetization of hate speech, giving voice and agency to white suprematism groups.
@gubi@Gargron You server would be only storing data explicitly requested by your community members by following or interacting with people on #threads. As long as your community members are not interacting with the kind of people your have mentioned such data won't come to your server. So it depends on the people of your community.
@folkerschamel
metadata define also your contacts, not just you. Whatsapp users are giving away interactions of people in their addressbook not using whatsapp, Mastodon users on instance federated with Threads will give away interactions of people of their community not wanting to be profiled by a company that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights considers accountable for genocide. I have a duty to protect the community, individuals are free to go with their data.
@gubi These "interactions" are publicly available and can be easily exploited anyway, with or without federating. A public social network is the opposite of a protected space.
That's different from your private address book on your phone which you rightfully want to remain private.
I don't know these servers, but if they are samples for blocked servers, then I assume that there are good reasons for that. From what I've seen @Gargron is a quite reasonable person.
Add comment