I used to think that there would be 1, main ‘Fediverse’ with all of the ‘big instances’ connected to each other. The recent Threads debacle has shown me otherwise.
The point of the Fediverse is that there is no one single entity, or group of entities, dominating it all.
Right now it feels like whatever the big instances do, we kind of have to go along with to be a part of anything. As the Fediverse grows, there will be more options to suit different types of users.
I think it’s fine if big instances choose not to federate with Threads. That will just create incentive for people to join other instances that do if that’s what they want. It’s not like defederating means being cut out of the Fediverse, that’s not possible.
Great design. I’m eager to see how it plays out.
You must log in or register to comment.
there is no one single entity, or group of entities, dominating it all.
This is what Zuck wants to change with Threads.
It’s not. He wants to create a social media that exploits its users without being accused of monopolistic behaviour.
All the tasty data collection and surveillance with none of the calories.
What kind of “tasty data collection and surveillance” will Meta have access to that they didn’t before federating?
they will have an excuse to do it openly instead of trying to do it secretly and inevitably getting caught
That doesn’t answer my question.
But the fact they can just defederate makes it much harder.
How does defederating make it harder?
I agree, the original idea of the fediverse is awesome. However, I believe the big players will decide almost everything about it in the end, simply due to influence on decisions being made.
But it’s fine. I’m kind of happy as long as big tech is not running it, and as long as it doesn’t have ads and user tracking, and other poison.
Edit: Since so many people are misinformed: No, blocking Threads on an individual basis is not a solution. This only blocks posts from Threads showing up in your feed. It does not block Threads users’ comments from spreading hate and extremism throughout federated instances, and lemmy users will still be subject to potential harassment from Threads users. (See the harassment of the LGBTQ+ community on Threads for examples…)
Here’s a comment of mine that states my argument against federating with Threads.
Also, I was not trying to debate the issue here. I was looking for recommendations for alternative instances… I’d appreciate anyone actually responding to my comment.
Original comment: Anybody have recommendations on a decent instance that won’t be federating with Threads? Maybe one that allows community creation but isn’t full of tankies?
I’m jumping ship from .world if they go through with federating with Threads. Such a shame to see the effort put into building this great instance come undone.
This place decided to disregard what the majority of their users want and turn the neighborhood to shit way faster than reddit. I thought we’d at least have a couple years before instance admins started selling out to such a shitty company that’s going to make the fediverse a less safe place for their users.
Meta will also do anything they can to EEE and I’m not convinced the fediverse is as invulnerable to such exploitation as some users seem to be.
I don’t get, even if you are part of .world and they are federated with threads.
Can’t you just personally block all threads?
You personally can defederate without it affecting anyone else.
No, that’s a half-measure at best… It only blocks Threads posts from showing up in your feed. It does not block Threads users comments from showing up on federated instances, even if the individual user personally blocks them.
I am legitimately fearful for LGBTQ+ users, as their community members have already been harrased on Threads by the far-right.
Keep living in your made up fear.
I mean… I’m not the OP but I don’t think people against meta/threads fear their idiot userbase. We just don’t want to deal with them. At all. Anywhere.
Or we’d have joined threads.
Thank you, exactly so.
Just because Lemmy.world doesn’t agree with about defederating with meta doesn’t make them sell outs. Like you said, you are jumping ship; just like the fediverse intended.
For better or worse, Lemmy.world is intended to be a catch all instance for normies so it makes sense why they would not defederate from meta.
I disagree that they aren’t selling out.
I consider it to be as such when this move isn’t supported by most of their userbase, they misframe that blocking Threads is a viable solution for the rampant issues with hate/extremism, and the decision puts their users at risk (both in the form of extremism/harassment and exploitation by Meta).
It’s an inch towards becoming mainstream, but the costs outweigh the benefits IMO. I believe it’s hypocritical to defederate from exploding heads and then turn around and federate with Threads.
I think misleading users into believing they can block Threads (only the posts), making a decision against the majority of their community’s wishes, and instead subjecting them to potential harassment, misinformation and exploitation is selling out.
If the majority of users on Lemmy.world does not want to be federated with meta then Lemmy.world will lose those users and then no longer be the power they currently are with influence over the fediverse.
Also I believe it’s disingenuous to equate explodingheads, which was defederated for being extremely toxic due to its lack of moderation and meta which presumably has more resources to devote to moderation than any fedi instance (of course they are still terrible at it)
I’m for defederating with meta when the time comes because I don’t think that their influence is healthy for the fediverse and don’t think that most admins could handle the burdens that would come with federating with them. Lemmy.world (and mastodon.social and a few others) is a big enough instance that they could handle those challenges. I’ve said before that if meta only sticks to the open source AP spec then the risks are much less and so that should be the criteria for federation
Also I believe it’s disingenuous to equate explodingheads, which was defederated for being extremely toxic due to its lack of moderation
Okay, right here, stop for a second and think. Picture in your head what happens on Meta platforms daily. Think about the rampant hate, harassment (especially of LGBTQIA people) and open radicalization/right wing propaganda/science denial that goes on completely unchecked on all platforms Meta, and has for years – despite Zuck’s yearly hangdog visits to Congress and the EU denying all problems while simultaneously promising to do better.
And as an extra mental boot, think of all the people – especially the young ones – who get openly and unrestrainedly bullied on Meta platforms, Lord of the Flies style, to the literal point of attempted or completed suicide. And consider how all Meta does, each and every time it happens, is mouth platitudes about thoughts, prayers, and their overwhelming commitment to safe platforms plus zero tolerance for bullying, as though that shit isn’t front and center on their platforms, ALWAYS.
Okay, carry on:
and meta which presumably has more resources to devote to moderation than any fedi instance (of course they are still terrible at it)
It’s not a matter of being terrible, and I’m not saying you’re wrong, but terrible implies that they try and fail.
I posit that they do not try: this is their actual profit structure.
It’s a matter of willfully avoiding even basic moderation duties because higher emotional load equals more engagement, more engagement means more content generation, more content generation means more user data and targeted ad revenue.
Apples and oranges, swings and roundabouts. Whatever you think of federating with Threads, do it or don’t do it, there really is NO possible comparison between Meta platforms and the Fediverse, nor how they are run and moderated (or not), nor the goals that motivate the administrators of both.
The most reasonable solution I’ve seen so far, from the pixelfed and pixelfed.social creator
For the lazy:
After some careful consideration, I have decided to block threads.net on pixelfed.social and .art by default
However, users will have the ability to unblock the domain
Soon we will be selectively enforcing authorized fetch for accounts with domain blocks so as to provide the best of both worlds.
(I’m also shipping a command for :pixelfed: admins to easily add user domain blocks for all local users)
I’m eager to hear your feedback!
That’s a good solution. Keeps the all feed clear of threads content while allowing users to opt in
Did Dan ever get the messaging service Sup going? Tried to look it up, but his name being Dansup is throwing a wrench in my Googlefu.
@supapp@pixelfed.social
Releasing in beta soon!
Also searching for #sup in Mastodon has been a good way to find information about developments. Not so necessary now that there’s an official account I guess. :)
Thanks for the tip!
I am unreasonably excited about this. Where I live, there’s no decent options for Internet or cell signal. Which means normal calling/texting doesn’t work, and regular Wi-Fi calling/texting is choppy at the best of times. My whole family uses WhatsApp for everything. I’m hoping I can get them to switch to something like this once it’s stable.
Not the solution I was hoping for but it’s an extremely reasonable compromise. I’ve never heard of selective authorized fetch. Pretty sure he just invented it.
FOSS ingenuity at work. All it needs is adaptation and adoption.
Authorised fetch has been a thing on Mastodon and I believe Akkoma too. I don’t know if Pleroma, Soapbox or Misskey have it though.
Unless I’m wrong, the unique thing here is that auth fetch is always off for the server. It’s on only at the user level and it’s only on at that level if a user has an active domain block.
That could actually solve a lot of problems for people. Admins are reluctant to enable it server-wide because it causes a bunch of problems. The biggest being that it breaks federation with servers running older software (Mastodon v <3.0 I think) and with other services (Pleroma, maybe others). It also uses more server resources. But there are always people who think it’s worth it.
Authorized Fetch has been a thing for a bit on Mastodon at least - but as far as I can see it’s a global toggle rather than saying “If you present as a domain on the blocklist then you must be authorized to fetch this resource” (the selective authorized fetch I assume they’re talking about).
Never used Akkoma though, so I can’t speak for it.
Yeah the selective part I think is new. I believe Akkoma’s authorised fetch is similar to Mastodon, though I’ve also heard it came at the cost of breaking MRFs (essentially policies to handle incoming messages, that can be custom-written if needed)
I think most Mastodon instances also simply silence Threads: Mastodon users can follow Threads users, but Threads won’t fill every algorithmic timeline and doesn’t get suggested.
Unfortunately, neither Lemmy nor Kbin have such a feature, though Lemmy’s user side server blocking introduced in 0.19.0 should help a little.
I’m pro federate, but honestly, this seems fair. However Lemmy wouldn’t need it, as to see a threads post on lemmy, the person would have to @ the lemmy community in their post.
I think limiting/silencing is an excellent solution. It gives the people who want to interact with Threads a chance, while not disturbing the people who don’t.
In regards to Lemmy: I’ve seen a few Mastodon users tag Lemmy communities and creating posts here (generating some hilariously broken Markdown titles in the process), so we may see a few posts here or there. I don’t think anyone over at Threads knows what the Threadiverse is, though, so it shouldn’t cause any problems.
Yep. And the ones that do know and want to post to our communities would probably have the right intentions anyway
All true, and making this a feature would simply be implementing the inverse of the new capability… overriding an instance level block instead of imposing one not already at the server level.
I don’t think instance level blocks should be overridden. Some blocks are the result of moderation disagreements (beehaw vs lemmy.world vs exploding-heads vs hexbear), others are because of NSFW content, but there are a bunch of Fediverse servers full of pornography that would be illegal to host in many countries around the world (lolicon porn, for instance). If an administrator doesn’t want that trash on their server, they should have the ability to block it.
I think there’s a significant difference between completely blocking off a remote instance and making all interactions with said instance opt-in, and the server administrator should always have the final word. I think leaving the moderation on a separate layer like Nostr and Bluesky do it (not that Bluesky is federating at the moment) was a mistake, the result of some laudable free speech ideals that just don’t work out in the real world.
I think you only made a case for having two or more levels of instance block, that already exist. One due to objectionable/illegal material that cannot be overridden, and another for something like threads where a significant number of users may not want to be opted in automatically, or want to block it due to purely ideological, non-illegal reasons, which would effectively be put in place by automatically adding the instance block to user accounts that can be removed at any time, which arguably can already be done with minor changes. That’s essentially what dansup is doing, complete with including a command for Pixelfed instance admins to apply the optional block to all user accounts.
Jerry Bell did it first!
Good to see more reasonable people in all of this.
Same. So what if someone doesn’t want to federate/defederate, but I don’t think people should be hassling admins to defederate
You can always, as a client, block individual instances in your settings
