The idea that everyone should defederate #Threads is basically the idea that everyone who uses #ActivityPub chose a completely and perpetually surveillance-capitalists-free web space, so that's what we should ensure. This is a false assumption - and if it was true, then this wouldn't be possible in the first place. We chose to use an open protocol, knowing that anyone could also use it and reach us. And that's why we have blocking. You can't control the #fediverse, it's an exercise in futility. But you control your account and your server. You can choose what reaches your screen or your users' screens, but that's it. Other people will do what they want, no matter how angry you get. You can't force people to federate with Threads, but you also can't force them not to. Even if every known server blocked them, if people want to follow accounts from Threads, they will just make a new server that federates. No point in getting angry with reality. Maybe ActivityPub wasn't exactly what you thought. But a social network that can control who enters is definitely not a network built on open federation. To make sure Meta or Tumblr or whoever stays out of your network, create a centralized network. This is the only network you can control.
And, you know, I prefer people following Threads users from non-commercial fedi servers, than from Threads itself. I wouldn't recommend anyone to use Meta services. But, you know, I have to admit I also still use Facebook (and its messenger, mostly). The reason is simple, there are people in my life that I can only reach there. I hope all of them will come to fedi so I won't need to use a Meta service any more. And I hope they don't come to Threads. I am running two public fediverse servers, this one and a greek one, I am actively trying to get more people to "free fedi". But if some of them choose to use Threads, ok, it's their life. As for me, I prefer being able to reach them from my fedi server, than having to go and use facebook. I hope everyone abandons Meta one day, I really do, but this sadly doesn't change today's reality.
I want to be nice but they act like we're the devil for wanting to federate with everybody. I think they want a separate internet where you can't accidentally browse to somewhere that might upset you. That all links should somehow be checked pre checked by some kind of safety council. They want an opt in WWW. Most people would still be on AOL while they'd be on a tiny "open network" that nobody else would qualify as safe enough for (and thus not care about).
@wjmaggos TBH I get the reactions to some extent, I mean people have EVERY reason to hate Meta. But when they demand everyone else to block them too, it seems like they think this would hurt Meta. I'm all for hurting Meta's interests, but I don't think this holds any truth, given the scale of things. When Threads' federation was announced, many people said that Meta will rely on content from fedi to fill up their "empty" platform. Then Threads got 100 million subscribers almost instantly, and they still don't serve content from fedi. This "crusade" means nothing to Meta. What hurts them is what makes them lose users.
Again, hurting Meta is a noble cause, but all this anger is misfocused and won't achieve anything. Except from making things more hostile and killing the vibe here. In a sense, this might push some people over to Threads, if anything.
yeah I don't get why they are federating except pressure from EU or Zuck wanting to kill X, but it's more threatening to them than it is to us. they are letting their justified hate (and not wanting to have any association with them) get in the way of useful strategy.
Add comment