While I was optimistic with the amount of Fediverse related placeholders within the Threads app, slightly surprised they’re doing it. Interesting to see how this develops (as the obvious Embrace...
While I was optimistic with the amount of Fediverse related placeholders within the Threads app, slightly surprised they’re doing it. Interesting to see how this develops (as the obvious Embrace Extend Extinguish concerns exists, although as far as I’m concerned Meta has already usurped Mastodon in popularity).
Threads surpassed Mastodon on launch day. Can you really extinguish Mastodon with a competing Fediverse product? Sure, you could allow your users to access things from other instances while...
Threads surpassed Mastodon on launch day. Can you really extinguish Mastodon with a competing Fediverse product? Sure, you could allow your users to access things from other instances while blocking access to Threads content from Mastodon, but everyone on there is using it to stay away from Big Tech, so that doesn't seem like it should matter in practice.
It will be very interesting to see how the fediverse reacts to this. When it was announced, a lot of people wanted Threads pre-emptively blocked. I think some instances did just that. Others took...
It will be very interesting to see how the fediverse reacts to this. When it was announced, a lot of people wanted Threads pre-emptively blocked. I think some instances did just that. Others took a wait and see approach.
I found the argument fascinating. It's weird to me that so-called "federation champions" did a complete 180 as soon as a company they didn't agree with started to say they wanted in. And yes, I am aware of the embrace, extend, extinguish phenomenon however I personally don't think it is easily done in a true federated system. No real evidence for that, just a gut feeling.
Can you elaborate on this more? I thought that was the whole point, that instances that aren't liked for whatever reason may get defederated. While I use some ActivityPub services (post-reddit...
I found the argument fascinating. It's weird to me that so-called "federation champions" did a complete 180 as soon as a company they didn't agree with started to say they wanted in.
Can you elaborate on this more? I thought that was the whole point, that instances that aren't liked for whatever reason may get defederated. While I use some ActivityPub services (post-reddit APIcalypse), I don't know the whole background with the "movement's" goals with federation, nor did I pay too much attention to Threads and that whole kerfuffle. I'm just the average user on these things.
I can do my best to elaborate, but understand I come from the point of view that you can block instances yourself on your own account, even if your host allows it. So in reality anyone can block...
I can do my best to elaborate, but understand I come from the point of view that you can block instances yourself on your own account, even if your host allows it. So in reality anyone can block Threads if they don't want to see the content. Also, from my point of view, Meta can mine/scrape any posts they want in a number of ways, so blocking them is a bit of "security theater" at best.
Many people seem to have a real ethical problem with Meta. I think that is where some of the "fully block Threads" people come from, which is a personal choice and can be fixed by either blocking Threads yourself or moving to an instance that blocks it outright.
The other argument I've seen is people that only want federation in a way that they support. These are the people I was referring to before that really pushed for Mastodon and federation as a general concept, but as soon as "evil Facebook" came into the picture, all of a sudden federation is something that needs to have gate keepers. To me, the entire point of federation is to put the power of the system in to more hands, so letting in more people is a good thing for the ecosystem overall. Again, there are ways an individual can manage these things for themselves.
As far as I understand Mastodon (and federation in geneal), Meta could run any number of "private" instances that federate with everyone and ingest that way. No one would be the wiser.
As far as I understand Mastodon (and federation in geneal), Meta could run any number of "private" instances that federate with everyone and ingest that way. No one would be the wiser.
I totally get that, but my personal view is it's too early to go nuclear, and by doing so they are actively harming the system they supposedly advocate for. I mean, I guess my biggest issue is...
I totally get that, but my personal view is it's too early to go nuclear, and by doing so they are actively harming the system they supposedly advocate for.
I mean, I guess my biggest issue is that social media of this kind is inherently a public square type thing, and if you don't want your posts getting vacuumed up into some mega corporation's database, then either post on your own private instance with your friends, or don't post at all. I know that seems harsh but I think people seem to often want to be able to be seen, but then when they are say "no no not like that."
People want to go back to Twitter and have a thing like Twitter where they felt important and seen by a large number of people, but at the same time don't want the centralized control or corporate overlords that came with it. I'm not sure you can have all those things at once, at least in the way we have social media systems today.
To be fair it's a mix of gut feelings and culture. Tildes is still invite-only precisely so we can control for culture, so I can sympathize with another site wanting to be cautious of a company...
I am aware of the embrace, extend, extinguish phenomenon however I personally don't think it is easily done in a true federated system. No real evidence for that, just a gut feeling.
To be fair it's a mix of gut feelings and culture. Tildes is still invite-only precisely so we can control for culture, so I can sympathize with another site wanting to be cautious of a company instance known for at best watered down news and at worst outright misinformation that is never bothered to be corrected. Moderating that stuff is already a pain and a huge splash of an instance from a trillion dollar company may as well be a fire hose aimed right into your cozy home.
Fediverse may not be a proven cultural phenomenon, but I don't think it's immune to Eternal September. I'd probably block it too unless suddenly I got a dozen other moderators to help out with such an initiative.
I get where you are coming from, and I think your points are all valid, especially for small public instances that don't have the ability to police Threads content coming across their servers. But...
I get where you are coming from, and I think your points are all valid, especially for small public instances that don't have the ability to police Threads content coming across their servers.
But those are personal decisions that users and administrators can and should make, and why federation in and of itself is a better concept than a walled garden or centrally controlled social media system.
I am much more in the "wait and see" camp. If Threads turns out to be bad for most instances, they will be blocked by most instances and the impact will be small. But doing so preemptively seems counter to the entire idea of federation in the first place, IMO.
Having slowly removed myself from most social media apps over the last few years in order to enjoy a higher quality of life, I set up a Mastadon account in July. I started out cautiously but...
Having slowly removed myself from most social media apps over the last few years in order to enjoy a higher quality of life, I set up a Mastadon account in July. I started out cautiously but quickly found so much to like about it. To me it is, like Tildes, the exact kind of social platform I am looking for. It is very reminiscent of what social interactions used to be like on the internet, meaning, first, that there are no ads. I think we have all been habituated into thinking that constant ad interruptions are just what the internet is supposed to be like, but it wasn't always that way and it doesn't have to be like that now. Second, my feed is a true timeline feed, not an artificially generated feed designed to keep my attention as long as possible. This means that I sometimes may miss things and that is okay. It's social media at a different, healthier for me, pace.
It will be interesting to see how Threads integration changes things. I have no doubt that their motive is to eventually find out someway to show me ads and monetize my attention but I'm hoping that this is difficult to do in the federated environment. Time will tell.
I would agree, but this is a perfect way for them to get blocked by lots of servers, so it might be counterproductive for Meta. I don't see them getting a lot of users to flock to Threads just...
I have no doubt that their motive is to eventually find out someway to show me ads and monetize my attention
I would agree, but this is a perfect way for them to get blocked by lots of servers, so it might be counterproductive for Meta. I don't see them getting a lot of users to flock to Threads just because they started sharing out their content. Maybe their hope is that people will, but I'm guessing that the people that want to be on Threads are already there.
Honestly, the way I'd see this with your analogy is as Mumble supporting connecting to Discord servers (with the inverse planned, but not working at the moment). If Threads wanted to Discord...
Honestly, the way I'd see this with your analogy is as Mumble supporting connecting to Discord servers (with the inverse planned, but not working at the moment).
If Threads wanted to Discord Mumble... they could do nothing. They're already bigger. And Threads can't destroy Twitter like that.
So it's one directional? I doubt they'd load Fediverse content onto Threads. I presume it lacks the interactive element. That's how they'll get you to switch, I guess.
So it's one directional? I doubt they'd load Fediverse content onto Threads.
I presume it lacks the interactive element. That's how they'll get you to switch, I guess.
At the moment, yes. From what they've communicated, they do intend for it to be bi-directional. Comment by Insta/Threads head on their future plans, and a message they shared with...
Normally I would not like something like big tech getting into the fediverse but having the option of following my favourite sports teams on Mastodon (the only thing I miss about Twitter) is...
Normally I would not like something like big tech getting into the fediverse but having the option of following my favourite sports teams on Mastodon (the only thing I miss about Twitter) is pretty exciting.
While I was optimistic with the amount of Fediverse related placeholders within the Threads app, slightly surprised they’re doing it. Interesting to see how this develops (as the obvious Embrace Extend Extinguish concerns exists, although as far as I’m concerned Meta has already usurped Mastodon in popularity).
Well, duh. Mastadon is a nerdy nerd thing, and Facebook is a massive tech company. Usurping was inevitable.
Threads surpassed Mastodon on launch day. Can you really extinguish Mastodon with a competing Fediverse product? Sure, you could allow your users to access things from other instances while blocking access to Threads content from Mastodon, but everyone on there is using it to stay away from Big Tech, so that doesn't seem like it should matter in practice.
It will be very interesting to see how the fediverse reacts to this. When it was announced, a lot of people wanted Threads pre-emptively blocked. I think some instances did just that. Others took a wait and see approach.
I found the argument fascinating. It's weird to me that so-called "federation champions" did a complete 180 as soon as a company they didn't agree with started to say they wanted in. And yes, I am aware of the embrace, extend, extinguish phenomenon however I personally don't think it is easily done in a true federated system. No real evidence for that, just a gut feeling.
Can you elaborate on this more? I thought that was the whole point, that instances that aren't liked for whatever reason may get defederated. While I use some ActivityPub services (post-reddit APIcalypse), I don't know the whole background with the "movement's" goals with federation, nor did I pay too much attention to Threads and that whole kerfuffle. I'm just the average user on these things.
I can do my best to elaborate, but understand I come from the point of view that you can block instances yourself on your own account, even if your host allows it. So in reality anyone can block Threads if they don't want to see the content. Also, from my point of view, Meta can mine/scrape any posts they want in a number of ways, so blocking them is a bit of "security theater" at best.
Many people seem to have a real ethical problem with Meta. I think that is where some of the "fully block Threads" people come from, which is a personal choice and can be fixed by either blocking Threads yourself or moving to an instance that blocks it outright.
The other argument I've seen is people that only want federation in a way that they support. These are the people I was referring to before that really pushed for Mastodon and federation as a general concept, but as soon as "evil Facebook" came into the picture, all of a sudden federation is something that needs to have gate keepers. To me, the entire point of federation is to put the power of the system in to more hands, so letting in more people is a good thing for the ecosystem overall. Again, there are ways an individual can manage these things for themselves.
If you're interested in a decent discussion, check out this post from the admin of infosec.exchange. There are comments from both sides there.
I don't think this is true. Fediverse admins take scrapers very seriously, in my experience.
As far as I understand Mastodon (and federation in geneal), Meta could run any number of "private" instances that federate with everyone and ingest that way. No one would be the wiser.
I think that's then the motivation for instances defederating from instances that federate with malicious instances, ex. infosec.exchange.
I totally get that, but my personal view is it's too early to go nuclear, and by doing so they are actively harming the system they supposedly advocate for.
I mean, I guess my biggest issue is that social media of this kind is inherently a public square type thing, and if you don't want your posts getting vacuumed up into some mega corporation's database, then either post on your own private instance with your friends, or don't post at all. I know that seems harsh but I think people seem to often want to be able to be seen, but then when they are say "no no not like that."
People want to go back to Twitter and have a thing like Twitter where they felt important and seen by a large number of people, but at the same time don't want the centralized control or corporate overlords that came with it. I'm not sure you can have all those things at once, at least in the way we have social media systems today.
To be fair it's a mix of gut feelings and culture. Tildes is still invite-only precisely so we can control for culture, so I can sympathize with another site wanting to be cautious of a company instance known for at best watered down news and at worst outright misinformation that is never bothered to be corrected. Moderating that stuff is already a pain and a huge splash of an instance from a trillion dollar company may as well be a fire hose aimed right into your cozy home.
Fediverse may not be a proven cultural phenomenon, but I don't think it's immune to Eternal September. I'd probably block it too unless suddenly I got a dozen other moderators to help out with such an initiative.
I get where you are coming from, and I think your points are all valid, especially for small public instances that don't have the ability to police Threads content coming across their servers.
But those are personal decisions that users and administrators can and should make, and why federation in and of itself is a better concept than a walled garden or centrally controlled social media system.
I am much more in the "wait and see" camp. If Threads turns out to be bad for most instances, they will be blocked by most instances and the impact will be small. But doing so preemptively seems counter to the entire idea of federation in the first place, IMO.
Having slowly removed myself from most social media apps over the last few years in order to enjoy a higher quality of life, I set up a Mastadon account in July. I started out cautiously but quickly found so much to like about it. To me it is, like Tildes, the exact kind of social platform I am looking for. It is very reminiscent of what social interactions used to be like on the internet, meaning, first, that there are no ads. I think we have all been habituated into thinking that constant ad interruptions are just what the internet is supposed to be like, but it wasn't always that way and it doesn't have to be like that now. Second, my feed is a true timeline feed, not an artificially generated feed designed to keep my attention as long as possible. This means that I sometimes may miss things and that is okay. It's social media at a different, healthier for me, pace.
It will be interesting to see how Threads integration changes things. I have no doubt that their motive is to eventually find out someway to show me ads and monetize my attention but I'm hoping that this is difficult to do in the federated environment. Time will tell.
Eugene (Mastodon founder) doesn’t think this is a likely outcome.
I would agree, but this is a perfect way for them to get blocked by lots of servers, so it might be counterproductive for Meta. I don't see them getting a lot of users to flock to Threads just because they started sharing out their content. Maybe their hope is that people will, but I'm guessing that the people that want to be on Threads are already there.
Honestly, the way I'd see this with your analogy is as Mumble supporting connecting to Discord servers (with the inverse planned, but not working at the moment).
If Threads wanted to Discord Mumble... they could do nothing. They're already bigger. And Threads can't destroy Twitter like that.
So it's one directional? I doubt they'd load Fediverse content onto Threads.
I presume it lacks the interactive element. That's how they'll get you to switch, I guess.
At the moment, yes.
From what they've communicated, they do intend for it to be bi-directional. Comment by Insta/Threads head on their future plans, and a message they shared with journalists/server instances.
Again, it should always be a "don't believe them until they do it", but this step makes me cautiously optimistic.
Normally I would not like something like big tech getting into the fediverse but having the option of following my favourite sports teams on Mastodon (the only thing I miss about Twitter) is pretty exciting.