I’m still on the fence about that being a good thing. I’m kind of looking forward to being able to see Twitter style content from major companies but without ads via my Mastodon account.
that’s the thing, I see all content from major companies as ads.
Right after I logged into Threads, with a new account, by first 2 pages were posts from Zuck, Wendy’s, Netflix, a Facebook fanboy, and another Wendy’s ad. I tried to screen shot it, but the shit app realized I was idle, and used that as an opportunity to refresh the content.
30 million people jumped into this stupid thing this AM.
It detects if you’re idle and refreshes the page?
That’s some horrible attention hacking bullshit.
I’m 100% going to find another instance if I see any content from that nightmare. I’m not on Twitter, or Facebook, for a reason.
Or it’s just a bug
I wouldn’t mind having the ability to send angry messages to them again, especially if me not following them also means I don’t ever see their content in my feed.
deleted by creator
Why do you think a large corporation would just share their content to people who aren’t viewing their ads?
They’re not just being generous. Corporations are not benevolent. So what are they expecting to get from it?
Here’s the answer: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
companies want to reach users, so they join Threads.
meta wants to federate Threads because it allows them to claim that they are not a “gatekeeper” under the EU’s new social media law and therefore not have legal responsibility for the content hosted by it.
a side effect of this is that I can view content posted by companies on Threads via a federated instance.
This is not necessarily the corp’s intention or them being generous. it is just a direct result of Meta using the fediverse as a loophole to get around an EU law and how ActivityPup functions.
I don’t actually think that this is an example of EEE because the Fediverse is not more popular than typical social media experiences, nor does it desire to become more popular or take over things like Facebook or Twitter. It simply wants to be a smaller alternative. I really think if it weren’t for the EU, meta would not be federating Threads.
EEE wouldn’t work on something that is popular. The whole point is to destroy it before it becomes popular. Furthermore, corporations aren’t okay with smaller alternatives existing at all. Their goal is to have a monopoly. Finally, Mastodon’s growth has been really impressive for the last couple years, so I’m certain that other social media companies are looking for ways to shut them down.
The “gatekeeper” theory has some merit too, but not in that way. You can find the definition of a “gatekeeper” on the European Commission’s website and I don’t see how federation would affect it at all. That said, gatekeepers are required to “allow end users to install third party apps or app stores that use or interoperate with the operating system of the gatekeeper”, and federation would meet that criteria.
Still, we already saw Twitter and Reddit move to paid APIs, and apparently that doesn’t violate the DMA, so it’s hard to believe that Meta would use a more open protocol without some other motivation.
Finally, Mastodon’s growth has been really impressive for the last couple years, so I’m certain that other social media companies are looking for ways to shut them down.
Even with its impressive growth Mastodon is a drop in the bucket and I highly doubt any of the major players view it as a significant threat or competitor.
It’s a lot cheaper to consume the competition before it’s a threat.
Do we also have this list for Lemmy instances?
So Meta is up and running now on threads.net, news to me. Hell yeah, ban the crap out of them.
What is the benefit of “banning the crap out of them?”
This is how the tried and true agenda goes using Meta’s threads.net and the Fediverse as an example.
- Meta’s site gets wildly popular because of corporate backing
- Meta’s site does something on purpose to cause poor operability with the rest of the Fediverse
- People not on Meta’s site can no longer properly communicate with people on Meta’s site, they go to Meta’s site
- The Fediverse gets fractured and nobody cares because everyone is on Meta’s site
- Meta’s site is the sole survivor and the rest of the platform dies.
- Meta enshitifies their site as corporations typically do (think Twitter)
So yeah, ban the shit out of them. The proper term is defederate them, but do it with extreme prejudice.
And if an instance get widely popular and gets corporate backing? Should we ban the shit out of them too?
If Facebook bought one of the big Lemmy instances, yes absolutely, defederate it.
I’m not just taking about facebook. Corpos will come sooner or later. Or maybe one of the bigger instances will become corpo.
Facebook is already here, they’ve practically got their finger on the start button. Yes, ban the shit out of them, and if one of the lemmy instances suddenly has shareholders to appease instead of their users, yes, ban the shit out of them.
Good luck
Not sure if you run this site, but it looks like mastodon.world has gone public and said that they will not be preemptively defederating Threads just fyi
I guess that’ll also apply to lemmy.world then
I’m not signing up for Threads, but looking at some of the stuff other people show me coming out of there, it might end up just being yet-another-nazi-instance when they open up federation so might just end up getting blocked on those terms and not so much the “being meta/facebook” terms.
What does this actually mean? That Threads users won’t be able to see content on those instances (and vice versa) once Threads gets its ActivityPub up and running?
I see a lot of of these instances citing privacy concerns, but everything we do on the fediverse is more or less open info. Unless I’m mistaken, Zucc could have already scraped Mastodon data if he wanted so I’m not sure how that’s relevant.
Now, if they were saying they didn’t want their users feeds to be flooded by Threads content, since posts there will almost undoubtedly have more engagement, then that would make sense.
That and they don’t want Facebook to profit off of our content.
Thank god my instance isn’t run by crazies
Are the crazies the ones banning threads?
Yup, they can let me choose to instance block instead. I don’t need a virtue signaling admin.
I’m sure Meta is reeeeeaaaallly upset that they’ve been defederated. Lmao
OOTL. What’s going on?
Threads is a twitter competitor by meta. They plan to eventually federate with the wider fediverse and to that end have contacted some of the larger fediverse servers like Mastodon.social (not mstdn.social) to do this. People are defederating before this happens because they worry meta will negatively affect the fediverse.
It’s mastodon.social that plans to federate. As the list linked above reflects, mstdn.social is preemptively blocking Meta
My bad, I swear I remembered him being a part of the NDA meeting, maybe he was but was suspicious
No worries, I was just trying to clear up any confusion! Mostly because those two instances have a really similar name, and are easy to mix up.
I think there were a lot of rumors about stux, because he runs a couple big servers, & wouldn’t sign that anit-meta pact, but I know he denies going to the nda meeting, & he announced blocking Meta today, after a big poll.
What does N/A mean?
not applicable
Yes. I mean, I know that N/A means non applicable.
But does the designation of N/A mean that those instances have not gotten back to you yet in answering the question if they are or are not federating.
Suspending them before they have actually done anything wrong is a bit like a pre-crime.
You don’t let pedophiles babysit your kids, and you don’t let Facebook federate with your social network.
it’s more like suspending someone who has engaged in bad behaviour in the past and is likely/promising to do it again. if you own your own fediverse site, you decide what the rules are and how to enforce them.
the difference between the fediverse and the corporate-controlled social media sites is that you can actually enforce your rules against larger companies on your own corner of the internet.
I know very little about the machinery that makes the fediverse work, so forgive me if this seems ignorant: What’s to prevent a malevolent entity from writing their own version of the fediverse that is compatible with the current version and uses the “EEE” philosophy to essentially take over, grow, and kill (or overwhelm) the ‘verse we all use now?
It’s not like “they” are some unknown quantity though, it’s the Facebook people. It’s not weird or unreasonable for people to not want the company that got fined literally a billion euros for data privacy violations just a couple of months ago to get involved in a thing they like
I’m not on Facebook but I know people who are, and they are just ordinary people who made a poor choice and didn’t read the terms and conditions. It’s all those people who you are excluding, not just Facebook employees.
All of those people are welcome to make accounts elsewhere on any Fediverse instance, though, just like they were before the launch of Threads. They’re not banned. They’re not being punished either. There’s just going to be less stuff on Threads.
They already spread medical disinfo like wildfire, got someone who sold our state secrets to the highest bidder elected, and house sociopathic terrorists like libsoftiktok. That’s enough.
