Alright you dogs, you barked loud and clear. Facebook's Threads is blocked : div0

[–] db1 44 points 2 years ago

Great decision!

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 years ago

Based.

[–] idkman 12 points 2 years ago

Good Anakin, gooood!

[–] rosa666parks 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I’m curious about the instance block policy, anyone know?

[–] db0 54 points 2 years ago (3 children)

We block loli, spam and fash

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago

As it should be

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

Meta in general definitely contains all 3, two of them on purpose by policy.

[–] gjghkk 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ok, so what is fash?

[–] pinchcramp 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

From the sidebar:

… the following subjects are explicitly not allowed …

Nothing extreme-right-wing. This includes conspiracy theories, SovCit, Pro-Police, AnCaps etc. We’ll know it when I see it, don’t test us!

So I would guess "fash" means fascist content.

[–] gjghkk 1 points 2 years ago

ok.

[–] Numuruzero 10 points 2 years ago

Most swood. Big ups.

[–] p03locke 10 points 2 years ago

What is this? Weapon of Choice? Mark will never be as good as Christopher Walken.

[–] Cosmocrat 10 points 2 years ago

HUZZZAAAHH!!!

[–] ArkyonVeil 9 points 2 years ago

Sometimes all you need to do is to simply send a message.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

Let's goooooooooi💥💥

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

Thank you!

[+] mikezila -9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

While I don't have love for meta/facebook/instagram/whatever corpo name they're deciding to lead with this month, the fediverse blocking off people who want to join it seems odd. Like, we want the fediverse to be a thing so that everything can talk to everything else and the content itself can be king without having to worry too much about where that content lives. So we have a standard (ActivityPub, among others) that we want people to use so it all Just Works(tm), and we have a large entity adopting it and we shit on them for it? Like I said I don't have any love for threads or meta at all, but shouldn't we be at least a little happy that the very concept of federation isn't able to be ignored in this way? What's the benefit of building all this that we want the world to use and then getting mad and booting people who choose to connect to it?

I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other I just don't see the danger or damage in letting federation happen and just letting users decide what they want to view and what they don't.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago

the fediverse blocking off people who want to join it seems odd. Like, we want the fediverse to be a thing so that everything can talk to everything else and the content itself can be king without having to worry too much about where that content lives.

Not me. I wanted something free from multibillion dollar corporations. And people aren't blocked off. They don't even need an account to view content or an app. And they aren't blocked from creating a non meta affiliated account if they want to participate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

If we want content to be king we should block huge, malicious corporations that have made billions of dollars by manipulating content.

[+] [email protected] -63 points 2 years ago (11 children)

Man. As if Threads would even care. Due to their connection with instagram, they will automatically become the bigger content aggregator anyway. Why would threads even risk federation with platforms they do not control - and then they get sued if some moron on some instance posts questionable shit and some snowflake user on threads sees it. I’d bet Threads was never supposed to be federated. They just made use of a pre-existing software, just as truth social did. Why work hard, if the software is already there?

Furthermore threads is not even competing with Lemmy and Reddit like alternatives. I do t get all this fuss about threads. Everyone is suddenly so anti corporate, even though big corporations had a big part in what the internet is today.

In the future Defederation will just strengthen the position of bigger platforms. People will sooner or later be unhappy with the rather low amount of content and move to bigger platforms (that will eventually by controlled by corporations)

Staying federated is the smarter decision, as users will stay on smaller instances, since they have a big pool of content from other instances, including corporate instances like threads or similar.

[–] db0 65 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Facebook already had a walled garden with Instagram. They didn't need to use ActivityPub. If the weight of their usercount was enough to make everyone to switch to it, people would have switched to it. And yet,the fediverse is thriving outside of their influence for a reason. Facebook is not opening up their walled garden for no reason...

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

To put it simply Meta is way more problematic than Reddit, so makes zero sense to leave Reddit then go running off into the arms of Meta. So stand up job. Hilarious seeing Zuck's astroturfers trying to poorly convince people it's a bad idea to not hold hands with Meta.

[–] gjghkk 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I agree 100% with you here. Also his user history reveals that he is literally a bootlicker.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Everyone is suddenly so anti corporate, even though big corporations had a big part in what the internet is today.

Big corporations also had a big part as to why piracy exists, so pirates on a piracy-focused instance being anti-corporate is not sudden at all.

I think you're lost, pal.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nah not lost. Just a meta astroturfer. Nice try Zuckerberg.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago

I just don’t see why it is considered bad to enable federation with meta.

The better concept usually wins. Survival of the fittest.

And Lemmy has grown into a viable competitor (at least on the software side, with apps and web apps facilitating access).

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Staying federated is the smarter decision, as users will stay on smaller instances, since they have a big pool of content from other instances, including corporate instances like threads or similar.

Speak for yourself. I don't want any content curated by that cancer of a company.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago

I might take a hit of cancer every now and then. I'm still checking in on Twitter for some sports journalists I follow but do most of my browsing on lemmy/mastodon. I could see doing the same with threads if it really does kill Twitter.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 years ago

If we wanted to be a part of Facebook we'd be there. And since we're not there we don't want Facebook to be here. This is why many instances don't want to be associated with them. Also no, corporations didn't have part in the making of internet. They had a part in profiteering of our data and the internet. Being anti-corporate is only a sensible decision one can make in today's world.

[+] 001100010010 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 years ago

Bootlicker?

My standpoint is that staying federated with meta shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

Because if the content from there is not good enough to compete with privately hosted lemmy communities, then there is no readings defederate.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Lets try to not throw names around and keep civil please. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, even if we dont agree with them

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago

Yes, absolutely. So I am entitled to my belief that the commenter is a bootlicker. If you claim to be pro "we need to hear everyone out" (which I oppose strongly and deep inside you do, too), isn't it hypocritical to claim authority over what is and isn't allowed because "it's not civil"?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Yes, but everyone is entitled to call people idiots when they're spouting idiocy.

[–] bandario 16 points 2 years ago

Everyone is ~~suddenly~~ so anti corporate, BECAUSE big corporations had a big part in what the internet is today.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago

I’d bet Threads was never supposed to be federated.

Except they already publicly announced that Threads is going to support ActivityPub and federate with the larger fediverse.

They just made use of a pre-existing software

Not in the way you think, I believe. It's not like they used Mastodon as a basis - they can't, at least not without also making their own software open source, which is never gonna happen. No, the software they're using is proprietary and built by them. What they are "reusing" is the ActivityPub protocol, but it's not like that was a cost-saving measure. Without the goal to federate, it would make no sense at all to use ActivityPub.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago

Yup, big corporations had a big part and a big part of the internet is shit. So, thanks.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

have you watched how embrace extend exterminate works?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yeah, I still remember early days of building something for the internet and you know what held back development easily by years: Internet Explorer. Big corporations even back then were playing that same shitty game of EEE, trying to lock people down and not caring at all about standards. Standards are why we have an internet at all.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, all the EEE talk made me reminisce a day or so ago about how IE was intentionally breaking standards and how dumber IT types fell for it and used it because "It's more compatible!".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

and then they had their software and some others spit out .htm files instead of .html files because it would cause just enough issues to let them still claim they were in support with the standard yet somehow weren't....

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And defederating threads would not be considered „locking down“?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not. It's a choice that instances make, not a change to the protocol. You can always change your instance or host your own and as long as Threads conforms to the activitypub protocol you can interact with it. Locking down cannot happen as long as majority of participants adhere to an open protocol. It is what happens when a major player makes proprietary changes to how interaction works. Please study how EEE works, there are numerous examples in the past. Defederation is not that.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago

Well I believe we will come to no agreement then. To my understanding, locking down is both, proprietary software and the decision to defederate. Because both have the same result.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

You're making the mistaken assumption that everyone wants lemmy to "win" social or something.

I don't want that at all. I want meta users to stay at meta. I don't want lemmy posts to be manipulated by meta users.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You sound like someone who no one wants here, why not just move to threads full time?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because I want Lemmy and mastodon to compete with threads and Meta.

I want a

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago

Then that makes you the only one, you lose that vote

/0