To be clear: unlike from the genuine, official threads.net, I do not see value (yet) in defederating from this domain zoo. I was just amazed by the sheer number that Meta actually owns. Domain fees are less than peanuts to them, of course, so they can afford holding these in a trash portfolio.
Just in case some fools are still wondering how the #Fediverse might change #Meta, here's what their Android app betrays: "APK appears to contain […] data models indicating advertisements in the feed […] The sheer amount of telemetry #Threads appears to collect is massive, far more than any other fediverse platform or application client. Why does Threads need #Health & #Fitness data, or #Financial info? Why do they need your #purchases and #search#history?"
Main point: The Meta/FB [Thread app/site] "P92 app will be carefully crafted as a one way bridge that is permeable for content in direction of Meta, but not so much for P92 users in direction of the Fediverse."
I still haven't made up my mind about blocking Meta's #Threads, codenamed #Project92 or #P92, supposedly supporting #ActivityPub, should it actually launch. As far as I can see, it's basically "keeping the evil surveillance corp. out" vs "avoiding nerdy self-marginalization".
Both are fair points. I guess, it depends. But on what? For me, the key point is if Threads (or whatever its name) supports easy migration (as Mastodon does). If that's the case, I would prefer not to block it, as it could be an offramp from the walled garden. If this feature is omitted, then I would be much more open to blocking.
But in the end, this should not be a decision by the admins, but a collective one by the users of the instance. #fedipact#Project92
@festal
The issue is more complex than just 'surveillance' (which they don't need to join the fediverse to do). The fear is that they'll do basically what google and big providers did to email, which is now much more impractical to self host, by swamping out with sheer volume everyone else and being the big voice that ends up dictating the evolution of the fediverse to its own detriment, opportunistically grabbing more users and then cutting off support for little servers. There's a rumor circulating that they want to PAY big servers to federate with them, and demand that content meet their guidelines, which could obviously fuck over people as it would create a vicious cycle of dependency as big servers would become incentivized to do whatever they want in order to keep the cash flow going - you could no longer trust them, and I guarantee you big social companies will be tempted to start using advertisement bots and artificial upvotes on influencers and toxic controversy to increase clicks and engagement.
I dunno about you, but I don't want ads or upvote-bots in my fediverse or big servers becoming beholden to a for-profit corporation for money. We've seen where that story goes - worse and worse.
If they actually do pay big servers, I am all in favor of defederating immediately as that is a huge red flag to me. But so far it is just a rumor. If they behave well (which would mean not tolerating Neo-Nazis, which, y'know, twitter does) I could be okay with them getting a probationary entry.
Just kidding, it's actually a picture of the 1985 Reagan / Gorbachev "trust but verify" meeting.
Speaking of meeting with #Meta, though, a couple of suggestions for whoever's talking with them ...
It would be great if Meta got a consistent message about how toxic their approach of having discussions only under #NDA has been. If you all draw a hard line and refuse to have discussions with them until they're ready to disclose their plans more broadly,, they can find a way to do that if they want to.
They might say no of course, even after they've gotten the feedback from their potential partners that their approach is toxic to the #fediverse. If so, that's good calibration.
And I'm sure you know this already but it's worth repeating: just like any other big company, Meta will put their own interests above yours. The people you're working with may well be awesome -- it's their job to get you to like them, and they're probably quite good at it. But they're not the ones who are in charge. If and when it becomes expedient for Meta to discard you or screw you over, that's what they'll do.
And a suggestion to #MastoAdmin, whether or not you're meeting with Meta:
No matter what your position is on the #FediPact - now's a very good time to have discussions with your community about the issue. Tensions are high and there are a lot of rumors floating around. Now's a good time for instance admins to discuss with their communities summarizes and links out to several good examples of community discussions -- including the outstanding #TertuliaExtraordinaria thread -- you could use as a template or starting point.