@mastodonmigration@rexum Personal data usually carries a slightly different meaning than a public profile and posts you choose to broadcast to the open web, and the way this entire thread is written is highly misleading in a disappointing way.
BUT the EU version has a different section for USERS WITHOUT A THREADS PROFILE that probably is in response to EU rules.
The EU version is arguably OK, and would not have generated this post. The issues raised by this post relate to the US version, and specifically to those Fediverse users who do not have a Threads profile.
@ricmac
My answer is no because this instance is blocking Threads.
A few reasons:
Too many users, it's not technically possible to enable federation.
No moderation from Threads, enabling hate groups and doing nothing would left me with the moderation tasks.
Moral conflict with the company, enabling genocide is not ok with me.
Too much centralization, really we don't have much voice on how a private company uses the ActivityPub, I'm from the original ideal of decentralized networking.
@amyipdev@ricmac In my opinion, Threads (and other commercial ventures on the fediverse) will always prioritise making money rather than doing what's right.
This means when it comes down to banning a popular account which is making them money generating content/drama/controversy or letting them harm a minority group, they will always side with their wallet.
We've seen this already, and they're not even federating yet. They are absolutely letting LoTT and the like get away with "free speech" and "just asking questions" that is causing real harm to real people.
Their policies aren't in-line with the standards that the rest of the fediverse has already established, and I doubt they'll be responsive to or even process federated moderation reports.
I (like @ada) was willing to give them a chance and not jump straight on the preemptive ban threads.net bandwagon. However their inaction has shown us what we can expect, and that's not what we want for our fediverse.
The recent excitement surrounding Thread's arrival on the Fediverse is concerning. To understand why this is not a good idea, consider their economic interest in harvesting data, their poor moderation, and their manipulations. Nothing good can come from their federation. Don't roll out the red carpet for them.
@ErikUden XMPP is brought up a lot as an analogy to Threads implementing ActivityPub, but I don't think it works. Google dropping XMPP support didn't destroy it, XMPP still exists today. It still had all the same users it did before Google joined the network after Google left. People don't still use XMPP today like they used to because it didn't adapt to the features people wanted in a modern chat platform. That's why we have Matrix now instead.
I think ActivityPub does have the features people want though, at least right now, and it seems very flexible to the addition of new ones.
If for whatever reason you never wish to interact with #Threads, you can personally block it for your account. This hides all posts and profiles from Threads, prevents anyone from Threads from following you, and stops your posts from being delivered to or fetched by Threads. Simply click the "Block domain threads.net" option on any Threads profile or post you see in Mastodon.
#Threads is testing federation for a few selected profiles. I'm now following @mosseri! It's one-way for now, but it's exciting. It's a step towards the interoperable social web that we've been advocating for 🙂
Make no mistake, this is huge for Mastodon. Currently people have to choose between X, Mastodon, and Threads, and network effects play a dominant role in that choice. If we can say, you can access all the folks that went to Threads from a Mastodon account, that makes it a far more attractive option given all of its other perks 😉
@aral@Gargron of all the pro-meta blog posts in the past six months, I have never read anything to the tune of "Threads is bound by Mastodon's terms of service like any other instance."
Hundreds of thousands of published words and none formed a sentence close to that. Not even in the form of a question. Odd.
@coldfish@aral@Gargron
The fact that Threads is set up as a monolithic instance that prevents anyone from blocking it in piecemeal is a Threads problem, not a fedi server admin problem (the same is true of Bluesky).
Like you said, Threads can't be trusted to properly moderate its content and the tool that server admins have for that is defederation. Making individual users have to handle a deluge of toxic content themselves has never been seriously considered as an appropriate response by any instance that cares about its users.
The fact that Threads is so massive isn't a reason for federating with them, it's the reason why it's even more absurd to act like this is a problem that individual users need to deal with.
If we defederate from toxic instances that have hundreds, maybe thousands of users, why in the good god damn is it not an obvious decision when we're talking about an instance with millions of users?
The Fedi #Threads angst: The view from a Fedi-loving normie. 🧵
I’ve spent much of today pouring over various comments and discussion about the first toe dips of Threads and Meta into the Fediverse. The responses are kind of amazing. From excitement to revulsion, I get them all and I understand them. But the more I think about it, the more I think folks are creating a “why” that may not exist.
To start, I do follow people on Threads. Many of my Twitter follows have migrated off the Bad Place to Threads. Some have not. However, I anticipate as X becomes more people’s ex, Threads is where they will go.
I love the Fedi. I’ve worked hard to build my follows and find my peeps. But it takes work. For me, that work has borne fruit. It’s my place to connect and get my wonderfully chaotic feed.
A lot of folks chose the fedi because they felt and are excluded or targeted and it offers them a community that lets them protect themselves and instances that help protect them. I love that. 1/x
When regulators say that Meta locks their users in via use of their size to force use of their product, Meta can say, this:
“No we don’t. Users can leave any time they want and retain their audience and interact with them even if the audience is here. It’s easy. But the people who are using and continue to use Threads are doing it because of the experience our app specifically offers. But they can go anywhere and retain their entire audience.”
That is a very, very attractive thing to be able to say to a regulator. And, if it proves to be effective, it could be a way that Meta could continue to be the normie location feeding ads and making money while holding regulators at bay. Heck, it could even be something a regulator asks a competitor why they aren’t doing it.
@Bam I don't think that Google wanted to destroy the email ecology. I don't think Google wanted to destroy email lists.
I don't think AOL wanted to destroy Usenet.
These things happened anyways. They happened because large corporations availed themselves of a commons, and treated it like an endlessly exploitable resource they had no responsibility to maintain.
It's like they took the Town Square and decided to use it as a dump.
Feeding #Threads trash into #Mastodon is the functional equivalent of when Tom Sawyer got the other kids to whitewash the fence for him for free. Only in this case Tom is Zuckerberg and his cohorts, laughing at the "Fediverse" rubes.
@mattblaze@not2b Meta has a clear and present financial motive to push as much as possible (and boost engagement on those posts) -- and will always be happy to spew a pipeline of sewage toward Mastodon (where a financial motive doesn't exist for all practical purposes) for anyone who likes to swallow deeply of such. Meta will NEVER be willing to permit a flow back from Mastodon/Fediverse that isn't heavily restricted and subject to arbitrary cutoffs, especially if content threatens Meta's financial interests. Clear enough for a starting point?
I’m on #Threads and if you are too follow me there so I can follow you back please! I’d prefer to keep all the mainstream random people out of my feed 😭
I'm of the opinion that #threads should not be engaged with in any way.
Not because I think it's a threat to the #fediverse, although it could potentially be.
Not because I think it will bring a huge amount of bad actors that will harass users on other instances, although that is definitely a risk.
My reason is simpler; #Facebook has done so much evil, society eroding shit, that I don't work with them on principle.
And Facebook knows that as well, which is why threads is instagram branded.
@aral I honestly don't get why people feel compelled to work with them.
I mean, the fediverse is growing, and the very nature of enshittification means that growth spikes will keep coming.
Let's just make this a nice place to be, and not try to make deals with the leopards-eating-faces-party in the hope that we get a bullshit hockeystick graph.
This is demonstrably false. Almost all servers that de-federate Threads still broadcast the RSS feed of your posts. This is available to everyone, even servers that are de-federated from yours.
If you don’t believe me, test this out for yourself. Append “.rss” to the end of your profile URL (exampleserver.com/@username.rss), and see what happens.
Hell, if I wanted to build a search engine for the Fediverse and not use ActivityPub, I could use RSS instead and I could index most of the Fediverse – whether you opt into it or not.
Let’s stop spreading the myth that de-federation by itself prevents Threads from accessing your public feed.
This whole federating with Threads thing has never made any sense and now we see it is very likely they have just been playing us the whole time. Let's stop falling for this nonsense and get back to building great open social media.
They go on to imagine some wonderful or awful scenario where the floodgates are open and #Threads becomes another #ActivityPub app like #CalcKey or #Plemora.
Maybe.... but what you are envisioning is really very unlikely. Threads is entirely algorithm driven. How's that going to work? Plus they have no interest in letting their captured users escape.
Just saying, this smells like another vaporwear marketing strategy. The beauty of selling poorly defined future capabilities is that everyone imagines they will be exactly what they most desire (or fear), and then build expectations and plan accordingly.
It could be some very limited window into the fediverse. Caution not to get too far out over our skis here until we know more about the actual capability.
@mastodonmigration#Meta has plainly stated that #Threads will embrace the #Fediverse & federate with apps like #Mastodon. I understand being cautious about Meta (especially after the issues #Facebook has created), but being super paranoid about clear, concise statements is a bit much.
#Threads sta testando la federazione con mastodon per alcuni profili selezionati.
Per ora è disponibile il Capo di Instagram/Threads @mosseri.
Se ci cliccate sopra vedrete che #mastodonUno avvisa i suoi utenti dei rischi nel collegare il proprio profilo con un social legato a facebook/Instagram.
La scelta è vostra: siete liberi di seguirlo, ignorarlo o bloccare per intero threads.net per essere totalmente isolati dai social di Zuckerberg.
Con la soluzione di @amministratore gli utenti sono liberi di seguire o meno gli account threads, altrimenti i messaggi di threads non li vedranno mai in TL.
Inoltre oggi ogni utente mastodon può anche defederare un'intera istanza.
Piuttosto @kenobit che ne pensi di silenziare anche tu threads?
@outlook
finché si è ospiti non si può pretendere nulla, ed è giusto così. Sta a te valutare di accettare o meno le condizioni che ti vengono poste in cambio del servizio offerto (e vale anche per Facebook)