So... I get banning the Threads server. I might do it myself, actually.
I get leaving an instance that doesn't ban Threads to join another instance that does ban it. Cool, migration is a feature of the fediverse.
But... don't ban servers that don't ban Threads. Like... that's some weird Civ III peer pressure bullshit.
I probably will ban Threads from my account. But I'm not leaving infosec.exchange. @jerry does entirely too well at server administration and this entire instance is comprised of too many people to be of one mind.
Like... we can all agree, no nazi's and racist shit, right? But politics and socio-economic models... fuuuck.... there's no way.
And I really want to talk with y'all. And I really really really don't want to spin up my own instance right now.
So. Ban Threads. Don't ban Threads. Instance wide or individually. But don't balkinize each other because of each other's stance for/against/indifferent Threads.
@tinker@binarytango@jerry The fedi losing its collective sh*t over what interacting with Threads might or might not mean will do more damage to the Fedi than Threads itself is capable of.
@tinker exactly. Instead of all bashing on @jerry and other admins better spend the time writing a blog post explaining how everyone can block threads or where and how to check what your instance will do and if one chooses to want threads they can still do so and move to a different instance. The instance admin spends an insane amount of time and money and they are under no obligation, even if you’re donating to the instance, to do anything. It’s fine to disagree and just choose a different instance or start your own.
Threads doesn't need to Embrace, Extend and Extinguish the Fediverse because the Fediverse will do the Extinguish part itself as people argue over whether or not a company should be allowed to interact with a FOSS protocol. If you want to make a personal choice to block Threads/you run a personal instance that's on you but any admins out there please do not block the only chance you have at building an open social network.
@BrodieOnLinux The argument isn't about "a company being allowed to interact" though, it's specifically about Meta harvesting user data from anyone who directly or indirectly interacts with their instance. Also, Meta isn't just "a company" and framing it as such is dishonest. It's a company known for spurring on genocide, spreading nazi propaganda and illegally selling user data, crimes they have been fined billions for. If the fediverse wants to allow nazis, it deserves to die.
@BrodieOnLinux Should we just legalise murder while we're at it, or..? Everyone knows data is being harvested, doesn't mean my data needs to be spoonfed to nazis. As someone in the EU, I have slightly higher standards than that.
@craftycat@BrodieOnLinux I think his point is that most masto/AP instances are not set into any sort of a private mode. They are searchable and reachable and thus the harvesting we fear is already happening. Blocking or not literally will not change that. Federation is not what determines access to your account, posts and data.
@reflex@craftycat Exactly this, you exist on the public internet, every single thing you do and say is being collected whether you want it to be or not.
@BrodieOnLinux@craftycat I'm investigating simply silencing threads for my members. The thinking is that makes it essentially opt in, if silence works as I think it does. I may be wrong, I haven't used that feature on any server yet. If it works as I think that would let members follow who they wish whether on Threads or elsewhere without default making them meat shields for the abusive accounts Threads already allows.
Might even be a good idea for mastodon.social, honestly.
I once wrote a bit on #PuritySpirals on the humane tech community forum, which is a social dynamic I see a lot on the fedi and FOSS as well. See my toot, part of a good discussion with some fine fedizens on the subject: https://social.coop/@smallcircles/110218561297164212
Add comment