so, I learned that #threads can not only get your posts, even if you blocked them (via different servers that didn't and that store your posts cus people there may follow you or interact with you), they can also monetize those posts by showing ads next to them. Thus making money off of you. Put that together with all the genocidal and fascist and other harmful activity. It makes me think that the #enshittification of the #fedi has begun. The cycles seem to move faster and faster. I love it here and I've had many elightening convos and beautiful connections. Today I read that 41% of servers have blocked threads. Maybe there is still hope.
Esp. the neurodivergent community on here is the best I've ever experienced. @actuallyautistic
The good solution is a total defederation of the fediverse. It's letting threads be its own bubble. It's highly unlikely that it will happen. The other answer could be to break the fediverse in two with on one side the federated and threads in one bubble and the defederered in another.
Now that for-profit tech companies are beginning to implement #ActivityPub, I think it's important to establish what we want with the #fediverse and whether federation with #Threads, #Flipboard, Tumblr, and the like bring us closer to or further from those goals.
With that in mind, I've come up with a few statements (in no particular order) that describe what I think is an "ideal fediverse" — a fediverse that's not necessarily realistic but that we should aim for:
No actor controls a large portion of visible activity.
Users can move between instances without penalty.
Creating and running an instance requires minimal effort.
People on or entering the fediverse understand the variety of available options.
There is no downside to using free and open-source platforms over proprietary ones.
These definitely aren't comprehensive, and if you have anything you'd add, let's discuss that! They're currently helping me reassess my stance on Threads now that Flipboard is also entering the stage, and I hope they're helpful for others as well.
I'll elaborate on these five statements in the comments.
@dangillmor strong disagree. Wait and see what? Whether federation with #Threads ruins the culture that we came here for, if it damages the fediverse, or if #Meta are not a malevolent corporation after all, but just made honest mistakes.
You're a smart man Dan so I'm surprised to see you say that.
New blog post: Understanding ActivityPub - Part 4: Threads
A first detailed look into how Threads implements ActivityPub. Learn about the data that is shared (or not), an interesting implementation of HTTP signatures, and Threads' take on quote posts in ActivityPub.
Well this would make #ActivityPub support on #Threads pretty pointless. It’ll mean the vast majority of their users will be defederated by default and have to opt into the #Fediverse. Defeats the point @mosseri.
@stux This is the way. I think people are overreacting about threads, ActivityPub is an open protocol, no one owns the network and anyone can join. You don't want to interact with them? Join an instance that is not federated with them or block the domain, the protocol allows you to. Let people enjoy things, many will love to follow their friends or favorite creators without having to go to threads.net directly or any other centralize service, and this open the possibility to even follow an account through #RSS on threads more easily. The truth is, people don't care about centralization, ads, algorithms, they love them.
We are less than 1% of meta user base, it is not like they are hungry for a few millions of user in the fediverse as fedi users are making it seems to be, when they have billions across their services, and #threads alone have more than the whole #fediverse in a couple of months.
If they later decide to eliminate #ActivityPub from their services, the fediverse will remain the same as it is right now, used for people who are considered techie.
Stop Using Threads consumes a list of users and tells you which of those users interact with Threads. You can use it to remove Threads participants from your timeline.
You can find out the tool's opinion on you by entering your own name, or you can just Submit with default settings to find out about Gargron.
Hey hcommons.social and the #fediverse: we've made the decision not to federate with #Meta and #Threads. We do not feel that we can adequately protect members of our community from potential attacks from anti-LGBTQ+, anti-Black, anti-academic, or other extremists who can freely create accounts and sow hatred on Threads unless we block the server. We do not want to allow any kinds of connections that would make our most at-risk users less safe.
We understand that this may disappoint some of you, and that you may wish to seek another instance that will allow you to communicate more freely with your friends on that network. Please read more about our reasoning on our team blog: https://team.hcommons.org/2023/12/15/threads/
#threads @actuallyautistic
I don't know whether the discussion about threads now having access to mastodon has reached you yet. Many of us are queer. Many may want to be invisible to facebook/insta crowds for different reasons. If your instance does not block threads, you can do this:
type 'threads.net' into searchbar. click 'profile'. Click first profile on the list. To the right there is the little dots menu. The last entry is 'block domain'. Click. Done.
I had to ask, so I'm posting it, in case anyone doesn't know😅
I don't believe moderation will be able to keep up with threads influx. There's instances that didn't block preemptively that have already made that experience and blocked them now. I don't need more scale. I need to be able to talk to you in peace. To have good conversations and trust that enables us to really connect. I can already not keep up with everything you have to say, that I want to hear.
I enjoy the atmosphere that we have created so much, that this decision was very easy for me. In a recent survey, Instagram was the biggest recruiting ground for nazis. I remember others that said it was facebook. We already know all of this, If it was a fedi instance, It would have been blocked years ago.
Later on you may have to do this again with 'instagram.threads.net'
They are still working on their integration.
Love to you all, for creating this great space that is sooo worth contributing to and protecting.
@TodayInTwitter I agree with @gruber opinion that Mastodon, and by extension the rest of the fediverse, is reverting back to being a niche tech nerds platform and not vectoring towards more mainstream acceptance. The Twitter slack seems to be being absorbed by Threads and BlueSky. That doesn't mean that the fediverse never will be but that initial surge of mainstream people has definitely dropped off. Many of the ones I follow here are posting infrequently but are posting on BlueSky (one I can check) and from what I hear threads. #mastodon#fediverse#BlueSky#threads
With Meta beginning to test federation, there's a lot of discussion as to whether we should preemptively defederate with Threads. I made a post about the question, and it seems that opinions differ a lot among people on Kbin. There were a lot of arguments for and against regarding ads, privacy, and content quality, but I don't...
I feel the post doesn't really address my concerns.
Really? You think Threads will take over and rule Mastodon? Threads is its own platform, users on the fediverse can still join Mastodon #servers of their choice and leave. I expect we'l see plenty of anti #threads Mastodon servers pop up. If Threads were to somehow get an influence in Mastodon, just switch to #lemmy switch to #pixelfed switch to #firefish So many choices.
This seems to not really understand the risk Threads poses. Threads is its own platform, yes, but it will dominate the visible content of any instance that federates with it. It's very dangerous to depend on a massive, profit-driven corporation for activity on the fediverse, as the things we value on the fediverse (decentralization, transparency, even distribution of content between instances, etc.) go against the corporation's motives. Meta does not stand to benefit from any of the things we value, and most of the Threads userbase (i.e. casual Instagram users) probably won't notice or care about federation. Meta does benefit if everyone depends on them for content, as then they can pull people to Threads just by defederating. People will choose to go to Threads where the amount of activity is what they're used to over staying on their Mastodon instance after activity has plummeted and they can't see most of the people they follow.
This is a big one. Meta might capture the mainstrean fediverse. Lets just be real the average regular internet user wasn't going to join Mastodon in the first place. Not that they wouldn't want to it just isn't on their list next to #facebook#instagram#tiktok#youtube#discord or even #twitter . Actually I take what Meta is doing as a compliment to the fediverse. Remember Twitter at one time under #elon#elonmusk banned the talk of Mastodon or something like that. Threads might not have our interests at heart but they are already mainstream so why should they not allow their users be federated with us?
Yes, there are definitely a lot of people that the fediverse is just never going to appeal to. But of those who are interested in the fediverse, more will be inclined to join Threads due to it having most of the content & just requiring an Instagram login. There is a pool of people out there who will try out the fediverse if they're introduced to it — that's how we all got here — and if people can interact with the big Mastodon, Kbin, etc. instances from Threads, many will choose to do that when they wouldn't have otherwise.
Oh awesome, I open my app to find the #fediverse in a giant collective panic because a social platform owned by a giant company dares to join it.
Fedi: “I want an open platform where everything is standardized”
(#Threads enables ActivityPub)
Fedi: “NOT LIKE THAT ANYTHING BUT THAT”
If you declare an open standard and provide the clearly superior ecosystem, you relinquish control of who uses it just by it being open. You can’t have it both ways. Ever.
Okay #Fediverse, let’s get something straight. We are all grown ups here (hopefully) and can make choices for ourselves. We alive in a society that allows us the freedom to choose for ourselves what to do.
Why would you allow or want to be part of an instance where they choose for you who or what to block? I understand that there are BAD people on #Meta, just as there are on EVERY platform on the internet.
Give the regular people on each platform a chance to been seen.
With yesterday's announcement that Meta is starting to test Threads and ActivityPub integration, I see the #Fediverse is at an all time high again of whining and crying and being butthurt over it all.
I get stating your opinion about not wanting them here or whatever, but come on people, don't sound like a little 2 year old who lost their pacifier. It gets old, quick.
Just mute/block and move on and be done with it all. It's really that damn simple.
Increasingly I'm finding #LinkedIn to be the best of the "normy" social media platforms. #Mastodon is where I have conversations, LinkedIn is where I follow industry trends and try not to become nauseated with the hustle culture nonsense.
I don't see how #Threads or #BlueSky really fit in to my mental conceptions of what I want out of social media. But LinkedIn, eh, it serves a purpose.
If any #lawfedi or @law folks are similarly straddling both worlds, look me up.
A case for preemptively defederating with Threads (kbin.social)
With Meta beginning to test federation, there's a lot of discussion as to whether we should preemptively defederate with Threads. I made a post about the question, and it seems that opinions differ a lot among people on Kbin. There were a lot of arguments for and against regarding ads, privacy, and content quality, but I don't...