Dumb. Federation is how we escape from every cloud-based service being a dictatorship of the person who owns the platform. That includes federating with privately own orgs to provide them an exit.
By all means make good tools to allow individual users to block Threads (or other private instances ruled by amoral coporations), but doing it at instance level is just dumb.
edit: also, number of instances doesn't matter. Number of daily active users matters. Most users are on mastodon.social, mastodon.cloud, lemmy.world, hachyderm.io, lemmy.world, etc. And all of those are federating. The only large instance that is not federating with threads is mas.to
What I hate to see, even in this thread, is people turning on each other in this "us vs. them", "you're either a part of the pact or you're against us" nonsense
Let's all remember why WE ALL CHOSE to get on the fediverse and build it. The strength of the fediverse comes from the freedom for each instance to choose how to run things. My understanding is that no one in an instance is harmed if some other instance chooses to federate or defederate from Threads.
I hate Meta. I also know that Meta doesn't need to do anything to take down the fediverse if we do it ourselves.
Part of it is just today's polarized political climate, especially since the popularity of the Fediverse is partially a backlash to reactionaries taking over Twitter and the corporate enshittification of Facebook and Reddit.
Everything is a war now, and solidarity and boycotts are basically the only weapons that small, independent actors have. So people apply "don't cross the picket line" thinking to everything, even where it doesn't make sense.
Want to act properly? Contribute money and labour towards your instances. Help them build better moderation tools so they can handle the flood of crap from Threads, and onboarding tools and better UX so they can steal away the Threads users.
"The flood of crap" isn't what people should be worried about. They should be worried about Meta embracing, extending, and extinguishing the Fediverse. There's a good article about this here. People are worried about the wrong things and don't realize what's at stake.
The Ploum article again. Please explain how the circumstances with XMPP and ActivityPub are remotely similar.
Both are open protocols for communication over the Internet. Both have been adopted by a large corporate interest.
Now, how are they different?
I asked how the circumstances are similar, not vague descriptions that suit your existing views. But sure.
XMPP was dogshit back in 2004. A good idea, but nowhere NEAR what it needed to be to actually get mainstream acceptance. ActivityPub is light years ahead.
There were very very few XMPP users in 2004. There are millions of ActivityPub users. If meta was to pull the plug on federation it wouldn’t kill ActivityPub, there would still be millions of us here. We joined Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon because we don’t want to live in a centrally controlled/owned social platform. That won’t change just because we can suddenly interact with Threads users. In fact, if anything, once Threads users hear that we get the same shit they do without the ads, they might decide to join us instead.
Google killing off XMPP integration didn’t kill XMPP. It did that all on its own.
If meta was to pull the plug on federation it wouldn’t kill ActivityPub, there would still be millions of us here.
It's not about pulling the plug. It's about introducing proprietary features that break communication, forcing people off of an independent server and onto Threads.
If most of your IRL friends are on Threads and your experience with them has gotten janky due to Meta fucking with the protocol, it's going to be very difficult to not switch over to Threads.
Oh, and good luck trying to get your friends to switch over to some indie server they've never heard of. If you can do that, then you should run for president.
They are different because most users weren't aware of XMPP. They weren't making a conscious choice to use an open standard. The fediverse, on the other hand, has grown specifically because people are seeing the value of an open ecosystem.
When google started removing XMPP support, users weren't aware and didn't care (other than losing contact with a few holdouts). If Meta implements AP support and then removes that support or modifies it so that it breaks some of expectations of the fediverse, most users will move to instances that don't use Meta extensions. Meta can not take your instance or make it use their extensions, so an open fediverse will always exist.
Well that and the story while not "wrong", is definitely hyperbolic. The author even stated after stating that Google killed XMPP that they didn't. So which is it? I'm not a dev, but an avid open source fan. i first tried Linux in 1995. Started using jabber itself in 1999 through Gaim. Later pidgin and psi clients in 2001-2. There were a ton of problems beyond Google. As far as clients were concerned there was no reference version. And there really were no large professionally run servers like mastodon.social or lemmy.world. People, myself included put too much hope in the Google basket. It was a massive unearned win in user count. That was just as easily lost. And kept people from focusing on the core service. Yes Google was never a good steward. Corporations never are. But the lack of official clients and servers, plus their decision to persue IETF standardization had as big or bigger impact on the services development and adoption.
The moral of the story isn't that Google or anyone else can kill an open source project. Microsoft Google and many more have tried and failed. The moral is that we shouldn't cater to them or give them special treatment. They aren't the key to success.
I'm not personally in favor of preemptively blocking threads on my instance and I don't find the EEE argument at all convincing in this case. But other instances doing that is no problem at all, it's fine!
Meta has no interest in being part of the fediverse, it only wants to eliminate any posible competition.
The usual MO of buying the competitors isn't posible on the fediverse, so the way to do it is embrace, extend and extinguish
Defederating is important because is Metastasis is allowed in the fediverse it will consume the fediverse, and then we'll be right back at the corporate social media we're trying to break away from, with the surveillance, ads and nazis being welcome as long as it's profitable
is Metastasis is allowed in the fediverse it will consume the fediverse
How?
I've seen the article about Google and XMPP, but I don't agree with its analysis. It wasn't easy to find service providers offering XMPP accounts to the public in 2004. I do not believe that Google embraced, extended, and extinguished a thriving ecosystem; there never was a thriving XMPP ecosystem.
There is a thriving ecosystem for federated microblogging, and federated discussions. While I'm sure Meta would like us to join their service, I'm not sure how allowing their users to interact with us will have that effect, nor how blocking that communication protects against it.
Exactly. Any analysis of "embrace extend extinguish" WRT Google/XMPP needs to answer a simple question: how many daily active users did XMPP/Jabber have in 2004?
the same can be argued about the fediverse. the approximate number is 1.5 million of monthly active users, which is just an ant compared to Meta's.
So yeah, one could argue that it's pretty much the same situation in terms of numbers if not worse (I don't know the numbers but I'd bet that Meta has more users than Google talk ever had)
Facebook has for 20 years proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted and it is not beneficial for Internet users.
Yet still dumbarse cry over how mean we are to not want them here.
Get this through your fucking head people, Facebook does not have your best intentions at heart. You exist in this space purely for them to exploit. And they will find a way to do so here because that is their whole existence as a company.
I don't know why. They “trust me” Dumb fucks.
Mark Zuckerberg
No one is crying because people are “being mean” to meta. They’re adults.
What trust is required to federate? If they’re not moderating their own or some other issue crops up, we can block them at that point.
Forgive me for repeating this, but I think it's a great analogy and explains all of our thoughts about it:
I've used this analogy before, but threads is like a huge, 5k passenger cruise ship docking in a small town in Alaska. You don't have to know ahead of time that the 2 public bathrooms, one at the general store and the other at McDonalds, aren't going to be enough. You can also forecast the complaining about how everything isn't really tourist ready. It will suck for everyone. The small museum will be overrun and damaged, the people will be treated like dirt. It's an easy forecast.
Here's the important bit, just because they've never been in the cruise line business, doesn't mean you have to give them a chance to ruin your town.
Thank you, someone finally looking big picture. I see a lot of folks talking about things like "it won't harm Threads" or "the federation is all about inclusiveness and joining together" and those people, while correct on paper, are missing the point.
Put simply, many instances would prefer not to deal with that unnatural influx, and that is their choice. In fact, the best part of the fediverse is not only that they CAN make that choice it's that they can UNDO it later if need be. I can't fault some of these smaller instances for being proactive in protecting themselves when few here really know what goes into running and moderating.
Threads wants to join the fediverse to either steal the content and/or kill it, there would be no other reasons.
Yes. My personal guess is that they want to start Threads as just another Federation instance where people build communities and relationships across instances as they do already, and act like a good Fediverse instance, all friendly and open and free . . . and then once there's enough popularity and/or cross-traffic they will wall off the Threads portion and monetize access, so you're forced to either pay up to continue in the parts you like and are invested in, or walk away leaving everything you put into it to Meta and paying users.
Oh, and they'll suck up as much Fediverse data as they can too, while they're at it: anything they have access to will be hoovered up for their commercial use, just as it is now. Federating means that all federated traffic will be propagated to Meta servers in due course, and we all know Meta has zero intention of being bound by any agreements in regard to the data of others, regardless of what platitudes they mouth.
On a personal level, I don't give a shit whether lemmy.world federates with Threads, but only because I have already made the decision personally not to participate in ANYTHING Meta, and that includes here on the Fediverse.
I'm already here because Reddit pulled that same shit, and I walked away then too. I learned my lesson. No way will I knowingly cross that line into personally investing time and attention into what Meta could wall off at any time and monetize without recourse for anyone who does make that mistake.
And I'd rather they not have my data, but it's not like I'm in any position to stop or prevent it. Best I can do is stay away from all Meta products, apps, trackers, and cookies.
TL;DR: People can do what they want with Threads, federate or don't, participate or don't, just know that Meta can and will wall it off at any time and expect participants to pay in some way to continue.
See, this is the more reasonable concern. Moderating a fediverse instance is hard, and the flood of posts coming from Threads might be a bad problem. That's a case where I understand the need to defederate. But on the other hand, that doesn't feel like a solution that needs to be done proactively - defederating from Threads if/when Threads users become a problem seems perfectly reasonable.
Here’s the important bit, just because they’ve never been in the cruise line business, doesn’t mean you have to give them a chance to ruin your town.
When this was happening I was a huge proponent of Google, and Google Talk, recommending everyone I knew to switch to it, because Jabber with the help of Google will remove monopoly from AIM, MSN, YIM etc.
Google fucking killed the network and I contributed to it (maybe not in a significant way, but I still feel very bitter about it)
How many users did Jabber/XMPP have in 2004?
recommending everyone I knew to switch to it
I think we've isolated the problem. Everyone is aware of the risk this time. nobody is going to abandon their Fediverse accounts for Threads.
GTalk was easy to install, no need to create an account (most already had Gmail), had incompatible features (like making a voice call), later was integrated into the Gmail web interface, so you could use it anywhere. So many Jabber users did switch to it.
Then somehow "broke" in a way that messages from GTalk were coming through, but anything coming from Jabber wasn't arriving. Since most Jabber users had Gmail account many switches to continue talking to their peers. Stubborn people, like me, were left with rooster full of people online that none responded to you.
At that time Google was seemed like a white knight, fixing things and making them better.
Facebook today is known for being extremely shitty and destroying any competition, and there are still so many naive people.
Then somehow “broke” in a way that messages from GTalk were coming through, but anything coming from Jabber wasn’t arriving.
I'd attribute it to malice, but looking at how badly Google has repeatedly mismanaged its chat offerings I'm going with Hanlon's razor here. They did claim spam was an issue as well.
If you federate with something too massive though it has undue weight on the entire system. It is likely to be Embrace, Extend, Extinguish again, and it's reasonable to want to avoid that.
For people who don't remember, the pattern would be something like:
Federate and use the existing ecosystem to help you grow and to grow mutually (Embrace)
Add new features that only work locally, drawing users away from other instances to your own (Extend)
Defederate - the remainder is left with a fraction of the users since many moved away, so the users on the local instance don't care. (Extinguish)
It depends whether 2 actually succeeds at pulling users in. Arguably most people already on the Fediverse are unlikely to jump ship to Facebook, but you have to consider what happens in a few years if it's grown, but Facebook is a huge name which makes people less likely to join other instances.
Personally, it's the implausibility of 2 that makes all of this seem like no big deal to me. In fact, I think federating openly with Threads might signal to Threads users that they can use alternatives and not lose access to whomever they follow on Threads, thus growing the user-base of other federated instances.
I think people who are going to use Threads for Meta-specific features are likely going to use Threads anyway, and if any of those features are genuinely good (i.e. not simply Instagram and Facebook tie-ins) they will be replicated by the various open Fediverse projects which already differ from one another in terms of features.
The moderation issue is entirely different and there are some instances that have an understanding with their users about protecting them from seeing any objectionable content or behavior as defined by whatever culture they have. Defederating from such a large group of people makes sense, perhaps even preemptively, no different from when they defederate existing large instances now.
The super cool thing is that you're more than welcome to start your own instance where they don't block it. Or move to an existing one. Because you know, the entire point is that instance admins are allowed to run their instance how they see fit.
Because you know, the entire point is that instance admins are allowed to run their instance how they see fit.
And the users are allowed to have opinions about it.
Correct, but that doesn't change who has final say over it. You're more than free to change instances if you no longer agree with how your current instance is being run.
I don't know if the fear is well rooted, but I can definitely understand how Facebook is perceived as not having established a history of trust.
They are a private company, which have placed profits above the best interests of its users.
Edit: I think you can draw a parallel with another scenario: an open and free market requires regulation. There should be rules and boundaries, such that a true free and open market exists. Similarly, there's an argument to be made than we should restrict the fediverse for it to keep existing in the way we want it to.
Jabber was much smaller than the Fediverse when Google launched Talk.
Users are more aware of the risk now. "Oh you should go use Google Talk, it's an open standard" is stupid in retrospect. Likewise, "you should use Threads, it's an open standard" would be absurd. The value here is "you should use Mastodon/Lemmy/whatever, it's a good open platform and still lets you interact with Threads users".
It's important to remember that the most famous example of embrace-extend-extinguish ultimately failed: Microsoft's tweaks to Java and Javascript are long dead, Microsoft having embraced Google's javascript interpreter and abandoned Java in favour of their home-grown .NET platform.
If you just want a hassle-free way to view as much content as possible, there are instances that are federated with pretty much everyone - just have to do a little research. If you want to guarantee keeping post history AND have absolute control over what you can see, you're gonna have to put in the work to make your own instance.
I think the conversation should be about the impact of federating with an "instance" with a long history of poor or apathetic moderation vs. creating an off-boarding system for Meta users to escape the corporatocracy.
Personally I vote for the latter, and I'm glad most of the larger instances are in the same boat.
In an ideal world people realize they can escape the ads and data collection without losing touch with friends, family and news and Meta goes down in flames but maybe that's the optimist in me.
Fully agree. I feel like helping facebook keep their users stuck on their platform or worse Twitter feels counterproductive in making the world more free.
Honestly I could see this being a way of trapping people by giving them less incentive to leave. If people like us leave and you have to leave the corporate hellscapes to see our posts that gives people a reason to leave too but if they can enjoy it from the "comfort" of Mark Zuckerberg's domain they have no reason to leave. That also makes them captive to met us since they can pull the plug in Federation anytime they like or mess with it in a thousand different ways. Convincing people to sign up for another account may be non-trivial but it's ultimately the best way forward
If you think Meta will allow the Threads algorithm to show anything from the fediverse you are unbelievably naive. And that's if content from the fediverse even makes a blip on a platform with 100x the size.
Meta doesn't federate with the goal of giving Threads users an out. They federate because it's the most efficient way to scrape fediverse instances and build profiles on fediverse users.
Meta has reached saturation with their existing services so they are now branching into any possible extra source of data they can. They'll take anything, from fediverse federation to Whatsapp emails. All your data is welcome to them.
They federate because it’s the most efficient way to scrape fediverse instances and build profiles on fediverse users.
That's not true. Quiet scraping is much easier to implement than integrating AP into your platform.
They don't need to show you anything in the algorithm.
As for data, that's complete non-sense. What data do you think they're getting access to that they can't already get? If the goal was to trove data they would have done it quietly and not announced it so that everyone could block them before they even had a chance.
They're federating because of the Digital Markets Act.
In an ideal world people realize they can escape the ads and data collection without losing touch
Meta will not allow this to happen, and if/when it does, they will take action. This shit is a zero sum game to these people.
I keep on forgetting that “threads” (in lowercase) is frequently being used to refer to “Threads” the Facebook thing, and not separate sub-communities within the Fediverse.
Was getting all confused as to why Fediverse instances were internally blocking each other.
Y’all all need to learn capitalization, yo. Helps reduce confusion by turning certain things into the proper nouns that they actually are.
This is part of the EEE strategy. Why else would it be called Threads?
I keep thinking of the nuclear war movie every time I see that name. That shit's scarring
FYI the 41% of instances that block or limit Threads (from the source data which doesn't have every instance), accounts for 24% of the user base of the fediverse.
Maybe a hot take, but if you want this big libertarian anarchist federated system you get all the pros and cons along with it. Not having a central authority means you have no real power to stop someone from coming in and taking it. It’s inevitable by design.
I'd argue the system is working quite well, every individual and/or community has the liberty to choose what to do about Meta.
That's what federation is all about, no central power taking decisions in behalf of everyone else.
I disagree that fediverse is inherently libertarian/anarchist. In fact, a big selling point is that you can find an instance the administration agrees with your politics and will implement moderation policy accordingly.
Someone should make a post about why blocking Threads is good and why it's not to be confused with gate keeping.
If not properly communicated, this could look very badly for the uninitiated and they're not to blame.
Some people of course have an educated opinion against blocking, but many presumably don't know the reasons behind it.
Care to give a summary on why you think they should be blocked ahead of any bad acting?
Yes, there is some concern about Meta attempting EEE, but ultimately they're a large platform that can bring a lot of users and attention to the Fediverse. There's nothing preventing large instances from blocking them down the line, and with user level instance blocking coming in 0.19 to Lemmy (not sure if Mastodon et al have something similar), you can block them personally yourself if you wish, rather than having that thrust upon you by your instance admins.
Because Meta has a long track record of being outright an evil corporation(not figuratively, literally).
Meta has already shown its hand multiple times, why would it be different this time?
I feel like that one instance not blocking threads should exist, like a common ground where people can interact and maybe convert threads user to leave big corpo and join us
It is gatekeeping, but gatekeeping in the way of "Stop corporate offices in this town" and not "Stop people who we don't think worthy from getting in".
Please don't treat facebook like a "decent corporation which only committed honest mistakes". It sold users' data to corporations, to the Kremlin, allowed users to be specifically targeted by extremist right-wing propaganda and spread disinformation about various international affairs.
Furthermore, there is absolutely zero guarantee that Facebook won't scan OUR posts for training AIs.
It's a known bad actor. Allowing Facebook into the fediverse would be as ludicrous as allowing Russians to live and establish bases in the US during the cold war.
Because , we know better than to trust lizard people.
"Nobody understands fedipact, Jabber, activitypub, Ruby, embrace/extend/extinguish, mastodon, lemmy, Java, federation, Kubernetes, XMPP, Docker, architecture, carburetors, Ikebana, midwifery, Filipino stickfighting, Zoroastrianism, hegelian philosophy, or XML but me, and therefore you're all morons with nothing to contribute to this conversation".
I left Facebook to get away from the brain rot. Please don't bring their demographic to spread here.
Allowing threads to federate is like allowing a virus to enter the system.
These "wait and see" dingdongs have somehow not learned from decades/centuries of history about how "hearing people out" in situations like this only leads to negative outcomes.
We'll let in a little Aunt Fash, Liberty Mom, candidate for Alaklabraska school board, as a treat
Different points of view will EnLiGhTeN
No offense but lemmy has its own brain rot and echo chambers. Not being exposed to the majority of the public reinforces a lot of this. You're just exchanging one kind of circlejerk for another.
Fedi users are also about a bajillion times less likely to migrate to a Meta product than the other way around. There was the opportunity to catch some people and help grow the fediverse, but between this and the mastodon HOA (pushes glasses umm excuse me you forgot to put a CW warning on your post about flowers a flower killed my dog when I was five and this is very problematic trauma you're causing and your alt-text should be at least 3 paragraphs and include a bibliography) it's likely the fediverse just did what it needed to ensure it stays a niche for like 3 audiences and that more people are stuck with the corpos if they want content that's not about being a communist or using linux.
Anyway, this is a step for Meta to avoid regulatory scrutiny. Everyone keeps saying how Meta is going to destroy the fedi (don't worry, we'll take care of it for them) but no one is saying how. For example, they cut us off? So what? We're cut off right now.
No one knows the exact way Facebook will try to destroy the fediverse, but I guarantee you they will try.
It challenges the foundation of their entire companies' profit model. If they lose total control of the social network they will be out of business as quick as you can say Myspace.
If Threads, which has the biggest userbase of any instance, is allowed to connect with Lemmy, their communities will naturally become the most trafficked (embrace).
Over time, the Lemmy userbase will largely move everything to the communities with the most activity. Facebook could also add its own proprietary features that Lemmy users wouldn't be able to see or use without the Lemmy devs somehow found ways to enable compatibility (extend).
Then, after a while, Facebook could simply say, "Eh, ActivityPub isn't worth it," and turn it off, leaving us without most of the communities we've become accustomed to and without most of the users we've come to know through those communities (extinguish).
This is known as "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".
Embrace a competing product and enable compatibility with the product. This may seem like some sort of goodwill gesture, but it's not. Companies are in it to make a profit, and any users not using their product is profit lost.
Extend the capabilities of your own product beyond that of your competitor's product, creating compatibility issues. Some existing users may jump ship to the "better" product because of this, and new users will be pressed to use the "better" product because of the compatibility issues.
Extinguish the competition by disabling compatibility with your competitor's product after they've lost users and stopped growing since you offer a better product with more features.
By using this method, you may successfully kill any potential competitor before they become a problem, nipping its growth in the bud.
Being open doesn't mean you let leeches enter your home
But they restore balance to my humors!
If you want Facebook controlling the fediverse with their overwhelming bulk of users.
How would they control it? If they do anything bad we can just defederate, right?
The problem with that is, if they join, they will have the most active communities. Everyone will naturally want to use those instead of the less active ones in other communities.
So, in that case, defederation may end up harming the userbase. After that, they'd basically have to rebuild the communities that got abandoned for the larger ones on Threads. Some users may even jump ship to Threads to continue using the communities they've become accustomed to.
So the question is: defederate and potentially harm your instance, possibly even irreparably, or stay federated and continue allowing Facebook to do what it wants?
Gosh this giant group of White Nationalists wants to come to my house for my birthday, well wow golly gee every opinion is a rich and valuable thing better let them in
Is threads that bad?
Not necessarily threads, but to remain wide open isn't necessarily the best policy. Or so I assume this to be the point they were making.
What a fucking hateful choice of colours. Green for blocking and red for allowing communication. Really shows what kind of perspective the creator has.
Yeah, the color scheme is the real clue there. It's pretty subtle what their viewpoint is.
Threads is Meta, one of the largest corporate enshitifiers on the internet - the crap most of us fled from that landed us in the fediverse in the first place.
...it's userbase is a relative ocean compared to the fediverse's drop, so the immediate concern is being able to moderate the tsunami of submissions; the long term concern is that things go peachy at first and the fediverse becomes so intertwined with Meta that it becomes functionally dependent on it... and then Meta decides to pull the plug, effectively destroying the parts of the fediverse that didn't defederate right out of the gate. This is called "EEE" or "embrace, extend, extinguish" as others have mentioned in this thread. It's a shitty thing bigger tech can do to destroy budding competition before it has a chance to become actual competition. Google has a history of it, and a lot of folks here naively think Meta will for some reason handle things more ethically.
Ok yea, fuck Meta and Facebook.
I think we should pressure public figures and governments to use non-threads profiles. That way if they pull the plug, there's a loss to their own platform.
Weird middle ground here. I kind of wish that 1 communities FROM threads were blocked, and 2 we had an active dev fund for ad blockers. I'm glad to have threads users come here and add to our communities personally.
Based, actually. People are welcome. Meta is not.
Right cause I think having both having access to normie content and giving normies access to fediverse content is a positive thing if we can balance out the power dynamic with meta. Blocking threads content would just defeat the purpose imo, it would prevent people from leaving threads for the fediverse because they wont be able to get the same content. If threads has it all and fediverse doesn't, most people are just going to go to/stay at threads. It could backfire.
Maybe if instances could allow meta users to see their posts to pique their interest/gain exposure, but meta users have to join any other instance in order to interact? Kind of like an ad I guess but UI native and unpaid. Though I'm really not sure if the fediverse platform would even support such things in the first place, and if meta couldn't just fire back with the same thing. It's just the first thing that comes to mind.
The fediverse's number one issues right now as I see it are accessibility and content density. I get the concerns people have with EEE but I also struggle not to see this as handling that last E (exterminate) ourselves just to spite meta. I want to join threads just to see what my friends and everyday people are posting, and I'd really like those people to join the fediverse so I can interact with them here. The only things keeping me away from threads however are privacy concerns and supporting meta, so being able to see the same content on a different instance might just be the best of both worlds.
How do I know if my insurance instance blocked threads
Call GEICO.
"hi, yes, Geico? Are Zuckerberg-defenders in my internet forums today? If so, I'd like to extend my anti-wanker policies"
There should be a phone number on the back of your card
Go to lemmy.world/instances and scroll down to "Blocked instances". If "threads.net" doesn't show up in that list then they haven't blocked them.
We just don't want history repeating itself like what happened with xmpp. Do you really think facebook of all companies is joining the fediverse with good intentions? Do you really think they're not trying to monopolize this?
I would like to point out that xmpp still exists. Google Talk does not. WhatsApp killed xmpp, not Google
XMPP still exists - and I use it for chatting with one person. Nobody I know uses it. Techies I know use IRC and, more recently, Matrix. Or discord, disappointingly enough.
And I mention techies because the rest of the world is just happy with WhatsApp/Messenger/Slack et al.
What I'm getting at is that XMPP feels pretty dead in my experience. But who knows, maybe it would be in this same position regardless of Google like you allude to.
I never mentioned google. And sure, xmpp exists but it's dead and would be much better off if not for big tech giants
Where did they even mention Google in their comment?
You're downplaying your own part, in between those two statements.
Internet rando: "I choose to enable this corporate, repeat privacy offender in strongarming its way into the open, federated web"
Edit: spelling
How is Threads going to breach your privacy by federating with your instance? How is de federating from Threads going to protect your privacy?
Do you think this is Threads' final form? Embrace, extend, extinguish. This is what corporations do. Everything is a zero sum game in their minds, and they will act in the best interest of shareholders. That shit has no business here.
I was going to reply but you nailed it. Its about outmaneuvering smaller competitors and controlling the marketplace, and then harvesting user data for profit.
They can already harvest the data. Nothing on the ActivityPub is private
Yeah, yeah, parrot the line and then please explain how?
Extending means making extra functionality that others haven't implemented, so that your offering is more attractive. You use it to build a walled garden. Defederation just skips that step and does it for them. They don't even have to extend.
You missed the point of my comment. I don't need to explain how, I'm sure they've got brilliant engineers working hard on it. This is just how capitalism works, Meta isn't a benevolent force here, their ultimate goal is to make money off users and their data.
I don't need to figure out exactly how they will do it to know that they will.
and if the principle is "keep zucc the fuck away from the fediverse", i'm all for it.
But it doesn't keep him away. Defederation means they consume all of the data from ActivityPub, you consume none of theirs. You are creating a walled garden for them that makes it harder for Threads users to leave.
This critique of "user choice means that every instance should try and be as open as possible and try and federate with as many compatible entities as possible, so that any user, from any instance, might find and interact with content from everywhere" is as valid for instances blocking Threads as it is for blocking instances for allowing hate speech and bot-boosted corporate ads.
Personally, I prefer those to be blocked and have "user choice" mean users choosing to participate and promote the instances they believe are more useful, because my "user choice" is "I don't want all kinds of bullshit to arrive unfiltered at my feed".
So many people here are acting like lions, jaguars, attack zebras etc don’t exist. There is no way on this earth that meta is coming into the fediverse with good intentions. Just because we advocate for FOSS doesn’t mean we have to be foolish and vulnerable. Being closed to meta is consistent with being supportive of FOSS, because make no mistake, meta is here to kill the fediverse.
Been enjoying Lemmy, so I wanted to see how Threads is. "It's just going to seem like another instance, right?"
It's Facebook with another skin. The posts are pretty much all the same sort of posts memes take the piss out of. Literally feels just like Facebook... Going to stick to Lemmy, myself.
Meta wants to kill the Fediverse from inside while it's not a big rival. That's the only reason Meta want's to "become friend" to the Fediverse. The same that GAFAM has been doing for decades (if you can't buy it, destroy it).
Brilliant, all the propaganda about "join us, the fediverse is like email" gone to shit. More like "it's like email, but if you email ends with @hotmail.com we will block your messages".
I agree with the sentiment, not with these actions, instead of giving meta users a way to break free, we built a wall between us and them, who have way more content, because we're afraid of Zuck stealing our data, which is public and he already done.
It's really interesting to see the two sides of the coin. People are extremely passionate on both sides. I didn't think people on the side of "in favor of federating with Threads" were just as passionate.
I think most people are tired of others making choices for them, rather than explicitly being in favor of federating with Threads.
I interpreted this in the context of multi-threaded programs. Very confused why everyone was so happy.
There would be little point being federated if instances couldn't choose how they set policies or moderate content. It doesn't stop an instance being 8kun if it wants but it doesn't mean the others have to accept that.
I wanted to recommend infosec.pub where I'm at, they have only defederated from extremist & cp crap. Overall not even 10, however lemmygrad is included (which I consider a blessing), that would probably be the only controversial one.
It uses a slightly different configuration than Mastodon but otherwise it behaves exactly the same. You can read and reply to Lemmy posts from Mastodon.
In the same way, you can block requests from certain servers (this is called defederating) so their users can't reply, follow or spam you.
So, I'm connected to a fancy computer called a server, and so are you, but we're connected to different servers. The reason we can still talk is that despite being on different servers run by different people, those people have made it so that the servers can share what I say with you, and what you say with me.
Federation is simply a fancy term for an agreement to share something. In this case, it's our text posts.
There are other kinds of federation, but that's not important to Lemmy. Since you asked specifically about Lemmy, I'll leave it at that.
You are on Lemmy.world. I am on Lemmy.ca. These are distinct websites but they use the same underlying service. Federating means that the two websites share their info - this let's us talk despite being on different websites.
I think every instance should be able to federate with whomever they wish, I just don't want to participate.
Yes, you can domain block threads.net just like any other mastodon/misskey/whatever server.
If you're an instance admin, yes.
If you mean that you personally just don't want, as a user, to see content from that instance, then no, but shortly. kbin has had the ability for users to block seeing content from particular instances for a while; lemmy has not, but I understand that it's in the next release.
Can I get a link to the EEE article that's been floating around? Trying to explain this to a friend and I'm too dumb/they do a good job
Kinda sucks because now you really have no control over who gets your data. No need to scrape pages or embed trackers when the fediverse just broadcasts your activity to anyone.
Even if your instance defederates from threads, doesn’t mean they defederated from yours, so anything you do is fair game for Meta’s data collection. That’s at least as I understand it.
You are posting publicly online. It's all scrapeable.
Yes, but I doubt Meta scrapes Reddit or Lemmy, for instance. With this change we’ll just be delivering it to them on a platter. And, knowing Meta, they’ll find ways to use the data.
Even if Meta doesn't do it themselves there are likely hundreds of companies that do, and Meta can pay them for the data they want.
If it's visible, you're best assuming that Meta, Google, Amazon, the CIA, everyone, has a copy of it and are linking it all together behind the scenes.
At least this way they don't get your IP address or linked advertising cookies. Here you're just a username and whatever you post. Unless you browse and post directly on threads that is. Those guys get all their milkshake drunk.
but I doubt Meta scrapes Reddit or Lemmy, for instance
Why do you doubt that?
If it's on the darkweb or deepweb then MAYBE they are not, but the reason the rest of the web is not considered part of those groups is because Google/Meta/Microsoft/etc scrape it, categorize it, and process it.
Welcome to the internet? We've been here the whole time
Then why are you posting publicly on the internet? Anything you post here is fair game.
Also, Meta's data collection is from their own clients so they can target ads to you. This information is basically useless as you aren't on their platform so they cannot take sensitive data and cannot target ads at you
Is there a way to block these threads about threads?
ELI5 what means "blocked threads" please
Threads is an US-American, text-focused social media platform from the Meta Group (Facebook).
Threads supports the ActivityPub protocol and thus can be integrated into the Fediverse, allowing data portability, follower portability, and interoperability with all social media platforms that also support it, including Mastodon.
Many Mastodon instances aren't happy with a company like Meta entering the Fediverse and thus block Threads servers.
Dumb. Federation is how we escape from every cloud-based service being a dictatorship of the person who owns the platform. That includes federating with privately own orgs to provide them an exit.
By all means make good tools to allow individual users to block Threads (or other private instances ruled by amoral coporations), but doing it at instance level is just dumb.
edit: also, number of instances doesn't matter. Number of daily active users matters. Most users are on mastodon.social, mastodon.cloud, lemmy.world, hachyderm.io, lemmy.world, etc. And all of those are federating. The only large instance that is not federating with threads is mas.to
What I hate to see, even in this thread, is people turning on each other in this "us vs. them", "you're either a part of the pact or you're against us" nonsense
Let's all remember why WE ALL CHOSE to get on the fediverse and build it. The strength of the fediverse comes from the freedom for each instance to choose how to run things. My understanding is that no one in an instance is harmed if some other instance chooses to federate or defederate from Threads.
I hate Meta. I also know that Meta doesn't need to do anything to take down the fediverse if we do it ourselves.
Part of it is just today's polarized political climate, especially since the popularity of the Fediverse is partially a backlash to reactionaries taking over Twitter and the corporate enshittification of Facebook and Reddit.
Everything is a war now, and solidarity and boycotts are basically the only weapons that small, independent actors have. So people apply "don't cross the picket line" thinking to everything, even where it doesn't make sense.
Want to act properly? Contribute money and labour towards your instances. Help them build better moderation tools so they can handle the flood of crap from Threads, and onboarding tools and better UX so they can steal away the Threads users.
Yes, yes and yes (I contribute money).
"The flood of crap" isn't what people should be worried about. They should be worried about Meta embracing, extending, and extinguishing the Fediverse. There's a good article about this here. People are worried about the wrong things and don't realize what's at stake.
The Ploum article again. Please explain how the circumstances with XMPP and ActivityPub are remotely similar.
Both are open protocols for communication over the Internet. Both have been adopted by a large corporate interest.
Now, how are they different?
I asked how the circumstances are similar, not vague descriptions that suit your existing views. But sure.
XMPP was dogshit back in 2004. A good idea, but nowhere NEAR what it needed to be to actually get mainstream acceptance. ActivityPub is light years ahead.
There were very very few XMPP users in 2004. There are millions of ActivityPub users. If meta was to pull the plug on federation it wouldn’t kill ActivityPub, there would still be millions of us here. We joined Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon because we don’t want to live in a centrally controlled/owned social platform. That won’t change just because we can suddenly interact with Threads users. In fact, if anything, once Threads users hear that we get the same shit they do without the ads, they might decide to join us instead.
Google killing off XMPP integration didn’t kill XMPP. It did that all on its own.
It's not about pulling the plug. It's about introducing proprietary features that break communication, forcing people off of an independent server and onto Threads.
If most of your IRL friends are on Threads and your experience with them has gotten janky due to Meta fucking with the protocol, it's going to be very difficult to not switch over to Threads.
Oh, and good luck trying to get your friends to switch over to some indie server they've never heard of. If you can do that, then you should run for president.
They are different because most users weren't aware of XMPP. They weren't making a conscious choice to use an open standard. The fediverse, on the other hand, has grown specifically because people are seeing the value of an open ecosystem.
When google started removing XMPP support, users weren't aware and didn't care (other than losing contact with a few holdouts). If Meta implements AP support and then removes that support or modifies it so that it breaks some of expectations of the fediverse, most users will move to instances that don't use Meta extensions. Meta can not take your instance or make it use their extensions, so an open fediverse will always exist.
Well that and the story while not "wrong", is definitely hyperbolic. The author even stated after stating that Google killed XMPP that they didn't. So which is it? I'm not a dev, but an avid open source fan. i first tried Linux in 1995. Started using jabber itself in 1999 through Gaim. Later pidgin and psi clients in 2001-2. There were a ton of problems beyond Google. As far as clients were concerned there was no reference version. And there really were no large professionally run servers like mastodon.social or lemmy.world. People, myself included put too much hope in the Google basket. It was a massive unearned win in user count. That was just as easily lost. And kept people from focusing on the core service. Yes Google was never a good steward. Corporations never are. But the lack of official clients and servers, plus their decision to persue IETF standardization had as big or bigger impact on the services development and adoption.
The moral of the story isn't that Google or anyone else can kill an open source project. Microsoft Google and many more have tried and failed. The moral is that we shouldn't cater to them or give them special treatment. They aren't the key to success.
I'm not personally in favor of preemptively blocking threads on my instance and I don't find the EEE argument at all convincing in this case. But other instances doing that is no problem at all, it's fine!
a house divided…
Meta has no interest in being part of the fediverse, it only wants to eliminate any posible competition.
The usual MO of buying the competitors isn't posible on the fediverse, so the way to do it is embrace, extend and extinguish
Defederating is important because is Metastasis is allowed in the fediverse it will consume the fediverse, and then we'll be right back at the corporate social media we're trying to break away from, with the surveillance, ads and nazis being welcome as long as it's profitable
How?
I've seen the article about Google and XMPP, but I don't agree with its analysis. It wasn't easy to find service providers offering XMPP accounts to the public in 2004. I do not believe that Google embraced, extended, and extinguished a thriving ecosystem; there never was a thriving XMPP ecosystem.
There is a thriving ecosystem for federated microblogging, and federated discussions. While I'm sure Meta would like us to join their service, I'm not sure how allowing their users to interact with us will have that effect, nor how blocking that communication protects against it.
Exactly. Any analysis of "embrace extend extinguish" WRT Google/XMPP needs to answer a simple question: how many daily active users did XMPP/Jabber have in 2004?
the same can be argued about the fediverse. the approximate number is 1.5 million of monthly active users, which is just an ant compared to Meta's.
So yeah, one could argue that it's pretty much the same situation in terms of numbers if not worse (I don't know the numbers but I'd bet that Meta has more users than Google talk ever had)
Utterly idiotic.
Facebook has for 20 years proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted and it is not beneficial for Internet users.
Yet still dumbarse cry over how mean we are to not want them here.
Get this through your fucking head people, Facebook does not have your best intentions at heart. You exist in this space purely for them to exploit. And they will find a way to do so here because that is their whole existence as a company.
No one is crying because people are “being mean” to meta. They’re adults.
What trust is required to federate? If they’re not moderating their own or some other issue crops up, we can block them at that point.
Forgive me for repeating this, but I think it's a great analogy and explains all of our thoughts about it:
I've used this analogy before, but threads is like a huge, 5k passenger cruise ship docking in a small town in Alaska. You don't have to know ahead of time that the 2 public bathrooms, one at the general store and the other at McDonalds, aren't going to be enough. You can also forecast the complaining about how everything isn't really tourist ready. It will suck for everyone. The small museum will be overrun and damaged, the people will be treated like dirt. It's an easy forecast.
Here's the important bit, just because they've never been in the cruise line business, doesn't mean you have to give them a chance to ruin your town.
Thank you, someone finally looking big picture. I see a lot of folks talking about things like "it won't harm Threads" or "the federation is all about inclusiveness and joining together" and those people, while correct on paper, are missing the point.
Put simply, many instances would prefer not to deal with that unnatural influx, and that is their choice. In fact, the best part of the fediverse is not only that they CAN make that choice it's that they can UNDO it later if need be. I can't fault some of these smaller instances for being proactive in protecting themselves when few here really know what goes into running and moderating.
Threads wants to join the fediverse to either steal the content and/or kill it, there would be no other reasons.
Yes. My personal guess is that they want to start Threads as just another Federation instance where people build communities and relationships across instances as they do already, and act like a good Fediverse instance, all friendly and open and free . . . and then once there's enough popularity and/or cross-traffic they will wall off the Threads portion and monetize access, so you're forced to either pay up to continue in the parts you like and are invested in, or walk away leaving everything you put into it to Meta and paying users.
Oh, and they'll suck up as much Fediverse data as they can too, while they're at it: anything they have access to will be hoovered up for their commercial use, just as it is now. Federating means that all federated traffic will be propagated to Meta servers in due course, and we all know Meta has zero intention of being bound by any agreements in regard to the data of others, regardless of what platitudes they mouth.
On a personal level, I don't give a shit whether lemmy.world federates with Threads, but only because I have already made the decision personally not to participate in ANYTHING Meta, and that includes here on the Fediverse.
I'm already here because Reddit pulled that same shit, and I walked away then too. I learned my lesson. No way will I knowingly cross that line into personally investing time and attention into what Meta could wall off at any time and monetize without recourse for anyone who does make that mistake.
And I'd rather they not have my data, but it's not like I'm in any position to stop or prevent it. Best I can do is stay away from all Meta products, apps, trackers, and cookies.
TL;DR: People can do what they want with Threads, federate or don't, participate or don't, just know that Meta can and will wall it off at any time and expect participants to pay in some way to continue.
Sure does seem that way.
See, this is the more reasonable concern. Moderating a fediverse instance is hard, and the flood of posts coming from Threads might be a bad problem. That's a case where I understand the need to defederate. But on the other hand, that doesn't feel like a solution that needs to be done proactively - defederating from Threads if/when Threads users become a problem seems perfectly reasonable.
It is not dumb. Thinking that this time it will be different is dumb:
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
When this was happening I was a huge proponent of Google, and Google Talk, recommending everyone I knew to switch to it, because Jabber with the help of Google will remove monopoly from AIM, MSN, YIM etc.
Google fucking killed the network and I contributed to it (maybe not in a significant way, but I still feel very bitter about it)
How many users did Jabber/XMPP have in 2004?
I think we've isolated the problem. Everyone is aware of the risk this time. nobody is going to abandon their Fediverse accounts for Threads.
GTalk was easy to install, no need to create an account (most already had Gmail), had incompatible features (like making a voice call), later was integrated into the Gmail web interface, so you could use it anywhere. So many Jabber users did switch to it.
Then somehow "broke" in a way that messages from GTalk were coming through, but anything coming from Jabber wasn't arriving. Since most Jabber users had Gmail account many switches to continue talking to their peers. Stubborn people, like me, were left with rooster full of people online that none responded to you.
At that time Google was seemed like a white knight, fixing things and making them better.
Facebook today is known for being extremely shitty and destroying any competition, and there are still so many naive people.
Google intentionally turned off XMPP federation in its chat product.
I'd attribute it to malice, but looking at how badly Google has repeatedly mismanaged its chat offerings I'm going with Hanlon's razor here. They did claim spam was an issue as well.
Can you share the secrets to somehow even being a 1/4 as optimistic as you are?
If you federate with something too massive though it has undue weight on the entire system. It is likely to be Embrace, Extend, Extinguish again, and it's reasonable to want to avoid that.
For people who don't remember, the pattern would be something like:
It depends whether 2 actually succeeds at pulling users in. Arguably most people already on the Fediverse are unlikely to jump ship to Facebook, but you have to consider what happens in a few years if it's grown, but Facebook is a huge name which makes people less likely to join other instances.
Personally, it's the implausibility of 2 that makes all of this seem like no big deal to me. In fact, I think federating openly with Threads might signal to Threads users that they can use alternatives and not lose access to whomever they follow on Threads, thus growing the user-base of other federated instances.
I think people who are going to use Threads for Meta-specific features are likely going to use Threads anyway, and if any of those features are genuinely good (i.e. not simply Instagram and Facebook tie-ins) they will be replicated by the various open Fediverse projects which already differ from one another in terms of features.
The moderation issue is entirely different and there are some instances that have an understanding with their users about protecting them from seeing any objectionable content or behavior as defined by whatever culture they have. Defederating from such a large group of people makes sense, perhaps even preemptively, no different from when they defederate existing large instances now.
The super cool thing is that you're more than welcome to start your own instance where they don't block it. Or move to an existing one. Because you know, the entire point is that instance admins are allowed to run their instance how they see fit.
And the users are allowed to have opinions about it.
Correct, but that doesn't change who has final say over it. You're more than free to change instances if you no longer agree with how your current instance is being run.
I think the fear is that this turns into an "embrace, extend, extinguish". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
I don't know if the fear is well rooted, but I can definitely understand how Facebook is perceived as not having established a history of trust.
They are a private company, which have placed profits above the best interests of its users.
Edit: I think you can draw a parallel with another scenario: an open and free market requires regulation. There should be rules and boundaries, such that a true free and open market exists. Similarly, there's an argument to be made than we should restrict the fediverse for it to keep existing in the way we want it to.
Jabber was much smaller than the Fediverse when Google launched Talk.
Users are more aware of the risk now. "Oh you should go use Google Talk, it's an open standard" is stupid in retrospect. Likewise, "you should use Threads, it's an open standard" would be absurd. The value here is "you should use Mastodon/Lemmy/whatever, it's a good open platform and still lets you interact with Threads users".
It's important to remember that the most famous example of embrace-extend-extinguish ultimately failed: Microsoft's tweaks to Java and Javascript are long dead, Microsoft having embraced Google's javascript interpreter and abandoned Java in favour of their home-grown .NET platform.
If we let corperate avithilea gain a foothold they'll EEE us. Learn from history, Meta's not doing this for our sake
deleted
If you just want a hassle-free way to view as much content as possible, there are instances that are federated with pretty much everyone - just have to do a little research. If you want to guarantee keeping post history AND have absolute control over what you can see, you're gonna have to put in the work to make your own instance.
I think the conversation should be about the impact of federating with an "instance" with a long history of poor or apathetic moderation vs. creating an off-boarding system for Meta users to escape the corporatocracy.
Personally I vote for the latter, and I'm glad most of the larger instances are in the same boat.
In an ideal world people realize they can escape the ads and data collection without losing touch with friends, family and news and Meta goes down in flames but maybe that's the optimist in me.
Fully agree. I feel like helping facebook keep their users stuck on their platform or worse Twitter feels counterproductive in making the world more free.
Honestly I could see this being a way of trapping people by giving them less incentive to leave. If people like us leave and you have to leave the corporate hellscapes to see our posts that gives people a reason to leave too but if they can enjoy it from the "comfort" of Mark Zuckerberg's domain they have no reason to leave. That also makes them captive to met us since they can pull the plug in Federation anytime they like or mess with it in a thousand different ways. Convincing people to sign up for another account may be non-trivial but it's ultimately the best way forward
If you think Meta will allow the Threads algorithm to show anything from the fediverse you are unbelievably naive. And that's if content from the fediverse even makes a blip on a platform with 100x the size.
Meta doesn't federate with the goal of giving Threads users an out. They federate because it's the most efficient way to scrape fediverse instances and build profiles on fediverse users.
Meta has reached saturation with their existing services so they are now branching into any possible extra source of data they can. They'll take anything, from fediverse federation to Whatsapp emails. All your data is welcome to them.
That's not true. Quiet scraping is much easier to implement than integrating AP into your platform.
They don't need to show you anything in the algorithm.
As for data, that's complete non-sense. What data do you think they're getting access to that they can't already get? If the goal was to trove data they would have done it quietly and not announced it so that everyone could block them before they even had a chance.
They're federating because of the Digital Markets Act.
Meta will not allow this to happen, and if/when it does, they will take action. This shit is a zero sum game to these people.
Yeah, I wonder how many of those instances are primarily enthusiasts self-hosting.
Feel free to removed when we block Flipboard or Automattic. We're only blocking Meta, because Meta's interests are not the Fediverse's best interest.
Feel free to removed? Is that client side or server side?
Then change instances to one that doesn't block threads. It's that easy.
I keep on forgetting that “threads” (in lowercase) is frequently being used to refer to “Threads” the Facebook thing, and not separate sub-communities within the Fediverse.
Was getting all confused as to why Fediverse instances were internally blocking each other.
Y’all all need to learn capitalization, yo. Helps reduce confusion by turning certain things into the proper nouns that they actually are.
This is part of the EEE strategy. Why else would it be called Threads?
I keep thinking of the nuclear war movie every time I see that name. That shit's scarring
FYI the 41% of instances that block or limit Threads (from the source data which doesn't have every instance), accounts for 24% of the user base of the fediverse.
Maybe a hot take, but if you want this big libertarian anarchist federated system you get all the pros and cons along with it. Not having a central authority means you have no real power to stop someone from coming in and taking it. It’s inevitable by design.
I'd argue the system is working quite well, every individual and/or community has the liberty to choose what to do about Meta.
That's what federation is all about, no central power taking decisions in behalf of everyone else.
I disagree that fediverse is inherently libertarian/anarchist. In fact, a big selling point is that you can find an instance the administration agrees with your politics and will implement moderation policy accordingly.
Sure, to a certain extent. But having an ability to opt out is far healthier than the walled gardens we have now.
Someone should make a post about why blocking Threads is good and why it's not to be confused with gate keeping. If not properly communicated, this could look very badly for the uninitiated and they're not to blame.
Some people of course have an educated opinion against blocking, but many presumably don't know the reasons behind it.
Care to give a summary on why you think they should be blocked ahead of any bad acting? Yes, there is some concern about Meta attempting EEE, but ultimately they're a large platform that can bring a lot of users and attention to the Fediverse. There's nothing preventing large instances from blocking them down the line, and with user level instance blocking coming in 0.19 to Lemmy (not sure if Mastodon et al have something similar), you can block them personally yourself if you wish, rather than having that thrust upon you by your instance admins.
Because Meta has a long track record of being outright an evil corporation(not figuratively, literally).
Meta has already shown its hand multiple times, why would it be different this time?
Their "test run" was only sending threads posts and not receiving any fediverse posts.
This is them shouting their intent, as far as i'm concerned.
No one has articulated it well. It's all just "meta bad". Can't we just defederate if they pull some crap and be no worse off than we are now?
I feel like that one instance not blocking threads should exist, like a common ground where people can interact and maybe convert threads user to leave big corpo and join us
It is gatekeeping, but gatekeeping in the way of "Stop corporate offices in this town" and not "Stop people who we don't think worthy from getting in".
As for why blocking threads is good, please google "Facebook Cambridge Analytica", "Facebook russian accounts" and "Facebook fake republican accounts". Also: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-knew-radicalized-users-rcna3581
Please don't treat facebook like a "decent corporation which only committed honest mistakes". It sold users' data to corporations, to the Kremlin, allowed users to be specifically targeted by extremist right-wing propaganda and spread disinformation about various international affairs.
Furthermore, there is absolutely zero guarantee that Facebook won't scan OUR posts for training AIs.
It's a known bad actor. Allowing Facebook into the fediverse would be as ludicrous as allowing Russians to live and establish bases in the US during the cold war.
Because , we know better than to trust lizard people.
https://fedipact.online/why
Could somebody explain what "fedipact" means?
An organized group of fediverse admins all united at not federating with Meta, i.e. against federation and also united in this goal
https://fedipact.online/
You should know that list isn't entirely accurate. My instance is listed despite the owner never having signed the petition and remaining undecided.
ITT:
"Nobody understands fedipact, Jabber, activitypub, Ruby, embrace/extend/extinguish, mastodon, lemmy, Java, federation, Kubernetes, XMPP, Docker, architecture, carburetors, Ikebana, midwifery, Filipino stickfighting, Zoroastrianism, hegelian philosophy, or XML but me, and therefore you're all morons with nothing to contribute to this conversation".
I was with you in the first half…
Filipino looooool
Still too few
If you don't like it, just move to an instance that defederates
Just what I did.
I left Facebook to get away from the brain rot. Please don't bring their demographic to spread here.
Allowing threads to federate is like allowing a virus to enter the system.
These "wait and see" dingdongs have somehow not learned from decades/centuries of history about how "hearing people out" in situations like this only leads to negative outcomes.
We'll let in a little Aunt Fash, Liberty Mom, candidate for Alaklabraska school board, as a treat
Different points of view will EnLiGhTeN
No offense but lemmy has its own brain rot and echo chambers. Not being exposed to the majority of the public reinforces a lot of this. You're just exchanging one kind of circlejerk for another.
Ehm... Shouldn't Fediverse be... Open?
Meta is a company that is gonna join us in being open and when they get enough users to have their platform running organically they cut us off.
So Threads, which is has 140+ million users and has consistently grown since launch without federation is worried about "getting enough users" from the fediverse, which has less than 10 million?
Fedi users are also about a bajillion times less likely to migrate to a Meta product than the other way around. There was the opportunity to catch some people and help grow the fediverse, but between this and the mastodon HOA (pushes glasses umm excuse me you forgot to put a CW warning on your post about flowers a flower killed my dog when I was five and this is very problematic trauma you're causing and your alt-text should be at least 3 paragraphs and include a bibliography) it's likely the fediverse just did what it needed to ensure it stays a niche for like 3 audiences and that more people are stuck with the corpos if they want content that's not about being a communist or using linux.
Anyway, this is a step for Meta to avoid regulatory scrutiny. Everyone keeps saying how Meta is going to destroy the fedi (don't worry, we'll take care of it for them) but no one is saying how. For example, they cut us off? So what? We're cut off right now.
No one knows the exact way Facebook will try to destroy the fediverse, but I guarantee you they will try.
It challenges the foundation of their entire companies' profit model. If they lose total control of the social network they will be out of business as quick as you can say Myspace.
If Threads, which has the biggest userbase of any instance, is allowed to connect with Lemmy, their communities will naturally become the most trafficked (embrace).
Over time, the Lemmy userbase will largely move everything to the communities with the most activity. Facebook could also add its own proprietary features that Lemmy users wouldn't be able to see or use without the Lemmy devs somehow found ways to enable compatibility (extend).
Then, after a while, Facebook could simply say, "Eh, ActivityPub isn't worth it," and turn it off, leaving us without most of the communities we've become accustomed to and without most of the users we've come to know through those communities (extinguish).
This is known as "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".
Embrace a competing product and enable compatibility with the product. This may seem like some sort of goodwill gesture, but it's not. Companies are in it to make a profit, and any users not using their product is profit lost.
Extend the capabilities of your own product beyond that of your competitor's product, creating compatibility issues. Some existing users may jump ship to the "better" product because of this, and new users will be pressed to use the "better" product because of the compatibility issues.
Extinguish the competition by disabling compatibility with your competitor's product after they've lost users and stopped growing since you offer a better product with more features.
By using this method, you may successfully kill any potential competitor before they become a problem, nipping its growth in the bud.
You can find more information and examples on the the Wikipedia article about this method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
Being open doesn't mean you let leeches enter your home
But they restore balance to my humors!
If you want Facebook controlling the fediverse with their overwhelming bulk of users.
How would they control it? If they do anything bad we can just defederate, right?
The problem with that is, if they join, they will have the most active communities. Everyone will naturally want to use those instead of the less active ones in other communities.
So, in that case, defederation may end up harming the userbase. After that, they'd basically have to rebuild the communities that got abandoned for the larger ones on Threads. Some users may even jump ship to Threads to continue using the communities they've become accustomed to.
So the question is: defederate and potentially harm your instance, possibly even irreparably, or stay federated and continue allowing Facebook to do what it wants?
Gosh this giant group of White Nationalists wants to come to my house for my birthday, well wow golly gee every opinion is a rich and valuable thing better let them in
Is threads that bad?
Not necessarily threads, but to remain wide open isn't necessarily the best policy. Or so I assume this to be the point they were making.
Meta is
We don't need to tolerate nasty megacorporations.
relevant xkcd my friend ;) The fediverse is still open.
Handy site to check your instances thread-blocking status.
https://fedipact.veganism.social/?v=2
What a fucking hateful choice of colours. Green for blocking and red for allowing communication. Really shows what kind of perspective the creator has.
Yeah, the color scheme is the real clue there. It's pretty subtle what their viewpoint is.
What's wrong with threads? I'm out of the loop.
Threads is Meta, one of the largest corporate enshitifiers on the internet - the crap most of us fled from that landed us in the fediverse in the first place.
...it's userbase is a relative ocean compared to the fediverse's drop, so the immediate concern is being able to moderate the tsunami of submissions; the long term concern is that things go peachy at first and the fediverse becomes so intertwined with Meta that it becomes functionally dependent on it... and then Meta decides to pull the plug, effectively destroying the parts of the fediverse that didn't defederate right out of the gate. This is called "EEE" or "embrace, extend, extinguish" as others have mentioned in this thread. It's a shitty thing bigger tech can do to destroy budding competition before it has a chance to become actual competition. Google has a history of it, and a lot of folks here naively think Meta will for some reason handle things more ethically.
Ok yea, fuck Meta and Facebook.
I think we should pressure public figures and governments to use non-threads profiles. That way if they pull the plug, there's a loss to their own platform.
It's owned by meta/facebook
What is the share of users that those 41% have?
Weird middle ground here. I kind of wish that 1 communities FROM threads were blocked, and 2 we had an active dev fund for ad blockers. I'm glad to have threads users come here and add to our communities personally.
Based, actually. People are welcome. Meta is not.
Right cause I think having both having access to normie content and giving normies access to fediverse content is a positive thing if we can balance out the power dynamic with meta. Blocking threads content would just defeat the purpose imo, it would prevent people from leaving threads for the fediverse because they wont be able to get the same content. If threads has it all and fediverse doesn't, most people are just going to go to/stay at threads. It could backfire.
Maybe if instances could allow meta users to see their posts to pique their interest/gain exposure, but meta users have to join any other instance in order to interact? Kind of like an ad I guess but UI native and unpaid. Though I'm really not sure if the fediverse platform would even support such things in the first place, and if meta couldn't just fire back with the same thing. It's just the first thing that comes to mind.
The fediverse's number one issues right now as I see it are accessibility and content density. I get the concerns people have with EEE but I also struggle not to see this as handling that last E (exterminate) ourselves just to spite meta. I want to join threads just to see what my friends and everyday people are posting, and I'd really like those people to join the fediverse so I can interact with them here. The only things keeping me away from threads however are privacy concerns and supporting meta, so being able to see the same content on a different instance might just be the best of both worlds.
How do I know if my
insuranceinstance blocked threadsCall GEICO.
"hi, yes, Geico? Are Zuckerberg-defenders in my internet forums today? If so, I'd like to extend my anti-wanker policies"
There should be a phone number on the back of your card
Go to lemmy.world/instances and scroll down to "Blocked instances". If "threads.net" doesn't show up in that list then they haven't blocked them.
This metric seems kind of meaningless if it doesn't account for the size of the user base
Percentage of instances is meaningless without knowing their representative size in the overall context of the fediverse.
Yeah what % of the population has blocked Threads, since World has opted to not pre-emptively defederate
FOSS bros: we’re all about user choice!
also FOSS bros: no not like that
It's pretty logical actually: The advocates of openness must be closed to one thing, and that is whatever aims to destroy openness itself.
Social Contract.
Exactly.
This is like inviting the Catholic church in an institution specifically built to protect former victims of same and similar institutions.
Given that anyone can start an instance and federate with Threads, or join an instance that does, freedom of choice is unaffected.
We just don't want history repeating itself like what happened with xmpp. Do you really think facebook of all companies is joining the fediverse with good intentions? Do you really think they're not trying to monopolize this?
I would like to point out that xmpp still exists. Google Talk does not. WhatsApp killed xmpp, not Google
XMPP still exists - and I use it for chatting with one person. Nobody I know uses it. Techies I know use IRC and, more recently, Matrix. Or discord, disappointingly enough.
And I mention techies because the rest of the world is just happy with WhatsApp/Messenger/Slack et al.
What I'm getting at is that XMPP feels pretty dead in my experience. But who knows, maybe it would be in this same position regardless of Google like you allude to.
I never mentioned google. And sure, xmpp exists but it's dead and would be much better off if not for big tech giants
Where did they even mention Google in their comment?
Last I checked, the people using XMPP are still running happily using servers and clients.
All 17 of them.
You're downplaying your own part, in between those two statements.
Edit: spelling
How is Threads going to breach your privacy by federating with your instance? How is de federating from Threads going to protect your privacy?
Do you think this is Threads' final form? Embrace, extend, extinguish. This is what corporations do. Everything is a zero sum game in their minds, and they will act in the best interest of shareholders. That shit has no business here.
I was going to reply but you nailed it. Its about outmaneuvering smaller competitors and controlling the marketplace, and then harvesting user data for profit.
They can already harvest the data. Nothing on the ActivityPub is private
Yeah, yeah, parrot the line and then please explain how?
Extending means making extra functionality that others haven't implemented, so that your offering is more attractive. You use it to build a walled garden. Defederation just skips that step and does it for them. They don't even have to extend.
You missed the point of my comment. I don't need to explain how, I'm sure they've got brilliant engineers working hard on it. This is just how capitalism works, Meta isn't a benevolent force here, their ultimate goal is to make money off users and their data.
I don't need to figure out exactly how they will do it to know that they will.
sometimes, it's just about the principle.
and if the principle is "keep zucc the fuck away from the fediverse", i'm all for it.
But it doesn't keep him away. Defederation means they consume all of the data from ActivityPub, you consume none of theirs. You are creating a walled garden for them that makes it harder for Threads users to leave.
Someone failed ethics class really hard.
This critique of "user choice means that every instance should try and be as open as possible and try and federate with as many compatible entities as possible, so that any user, from any instance, might find and interact with content from everywhere" is as valid for instances blocking Threads as it is for blocking instances for allowing hate speech and bot-boosted corporate ads.
Personally, I prefer those to be blocked and have "user choice" mean users choosing to participate and promote the instances they believe are more useful, because my "user choice" is "I don't want all kinds of bullshit to arrive unfiltered at my feed".
So many people here are acting like lions, jaguars, attack zebras etc don’t exist. There is no way on this earth that meta is coming into the fediverse with good intentions. Just because we advocate for FOSS doesn’t mean we have to be foolish and vulnerable. Being closed to meta is consistent with being supportive of FOSS, because make no mistake, meta is here to kill the fediverse.
Been enjoying Lemmy, so I wanted to see how Threads is. "It's just going to seem like another instance, right?"
It's Facebook with another skin. The posts are pretty much all the same sort of posts memes take the piss out of. Literally feels just like Facebook... Going to stick to Lemmy, myself.
Meta wants to kill the Fediverse from inside while it's not a big rival. That's the only reason Meta want's to "become friend" to the Fediverse. The same that GAFAM has been doing for decades (if you can't buy it, destroy it).
Brilliant, all the propaganda about "join us, the fediverse is like email" gone to shit. More like "it's like email, but if you email ends with @hotmail.com we will block your messages".
I agree with the sentiment, not with these actions, instead of giving meta users a way to break free, we built a wall between us and them, who have way more content, because we're afraid of Zuck stealing our data, which is public and he already done.
It's really interesting to see the two sides of the coin. People are extremely passionate on both sides. I didn't think people on the side of "in favor of federating with Threads" were just as passionate.
I think most people are tired of others making choices for them, rather than explicitly being in favor of federating with Threads.
I interpreted this in the context of multi-threaded programs. Very confused why everyone was so happy.
There would be little point being federated if instances couldn't choose how they set policies or moderate content. It doesn't stop an instance being 8kun if it wants but it doesn't mean the others have to accept that.
Let's hit 90% 💪!
what does fedipact mean
It's a grassroots fedi movement aimed at blocking big Corporate social media networks (like Twitter and Facebook) from the fediverse.
oh thanks
https://fedipact.online
I’m glad my instance is a sane one.
Interpret that how you will.
I'm playing both sides, so that I always win.
Why would you tell me that?
Any instances who've promised not to block?
The official Mastodon instances will probably never block, due to Gargron's eagerness to federate with them.
Honestly, I expected something like 80%. But progress is progress.
I'd like to join an instance that doesn't defederate from anything.
Perhaps we can have two separate fediverses going.
You can always run your own single-user instance. Of course, you quickly discover why people defederate from certain instances.
But if you really want it you can just rawdog ActivityPub.
I wanted to recommend infosec.pub where I'm at, they have only defederated from extremist & cp crap. Overall not even 10, however lemmygrad is included (which I consider a blessing), that would probably be the only controversial one.
Already is happening
ELI5 federation on Lemmy
It uses a slightly different configuration than Mastodon but otherwise it behaves exactly the same. You can read and reply to Lemmy posts from Mastodon.
In the same way, you can block requests from certain servers (this is called defederating) so their users can't reply, follow or spam you.
So, I'm connected to a fancy computer called a server, and so are you, but we're connected to different servers. The reason we can still talk is that despite being on different servers run by different people, those people have made it so that the servers can share what I say with you, and what you say with me.
Federation is simply a fancy term for an agreement to share something. In this case, it's our text posts.
There are other kinds of federation, but that's not important to Lemmy. Since you asked specifically about Lemmy, I'll leave it at that.
You are on Lemmy.world. I am on Lemmy.ca. These are distinct websites but they use the same underlying service. Federating means that the two websites share their info - this let's us talk despite being on different websites.
Does Threads show up as an instance I can block?
I think every instance should be able to federate with whomever they wish, I just don't want to participate.
Yes, you can domain block threads.net just like any other mastodon/misskey/whatever server.
If you're an instance admin, yes.
If you mean that you personally just don't want, as a user, to see content from that instance, then no, but shortly. kbin has had the ability for users to block seeing content from particular instances for a while; lemmy has not, but I understand that it's in the next release.
Can I get a link to the EEE article that's been floating around? Trying to explain this to a friend and I'm too dumb/they do a good job
This one?
Yes thank you!
Where can we find out which of the larger instances blocked or did not block Threads?
You can use this: https://fedipact.veganism.social/?v=2
That's inaccurate. The instance I'm on is listed as federated but it was defederated months ago.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Kinda sucks because now you really have no control over who gets your data. No need to scrape pages or embed trackers when the fediverse just broadcasts your activity to anyone.
Even if your instance defederates from threads, doesn’t mean they defederated from yours, so anything you do is fair game for Meta’s data collection. That’s at least as I understand it.
You are posting publicly online. It's all scrapeable.
Yes, but I doubt Meta scrapes Reddit or Lemmy, for instance. With this change we’ll just be delivering it to them on a platter. And, knowing Meta, they’ll find ways to use the data.
Even if Meta doesn't do it themselves there are likely hundreds of companies that do, and Meta can pay them for the data they want.
If it's visible, you're best assuming that Meta, Google, Amazon, the CIA, everyone, has a copy of it and are linking it all together behind the scenes.
At least this way they don't get your IP address or linked advertising cookies. Here you're just a username and whatever you post. Unless you browse and post directly on threads that is. Those guys get all their milkshake drunk.
Why do you doubt that?
If it's on the darkweb or deepweb then MAYBE they are not, but the reason the rest of the web is not considered part of those groups is because Google/Meta/Microsoft/etc scrape it, categorize it, and process it.
Welcome to the internet? We've been here the whole time
Then why are you posting publicly on the internet? Anything you post here is fair game.
Also, Meta's data collection is from their own clients so they can target ads to you. This information is basically useless as you aren't on their platform so they cannot take sensitive data and cannot target ads at you
Is there a way to block these threads about threads?
ELI5 what means "blocked threads" please
Threads is an US-American, text-focused social media platform from the Meta Group (Facebook).
Threads supports the ActivityPub protocol and thus can be integrated into the Fediverse, allowing data portability, follower portability, and interoperability with all social media platforms that also support it, including Mastodon.
Many Mastodon instances aren't happy with a company like Meta entering the Fediverse and thus block Threads servers.