this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
954 points (78.9% liked)

Fediverse

28339 readers
254 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Meta just announced that they are trying to integrate Threads with ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, etc.). We need to defederate them if we want to avoid them pushing their crap into fediverse.

If you're a server admin, please defederate Meta's domain "threads.net"

If you don't run your own server, please ask your server admin to defederate "threads.net".

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (11 children)

If you don't subscribe to threads you'll never see it.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] TiggsPanther@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

Oddly, this may well be what really spurs on decentralisation. I suspect more and more individuals, or small groups, will spin up their own instances rather than all gravitating to the bigger ones, due to issues like this.

Because, ultimately, the more tech-savvy users (the ones more likely to be into the Fediverse, anyway) will want to decide for themselves what content they do and don't see.

And it's nothing to do with whether or note someone likes/trusts Meta. It's people being able to make their own decisions on what content they want to be able to follow and not have it decided by someone else based on their interests. If someone's friends/family/fandom has a heavy Threads presence, they can spin up their own instance and be able to follow that content themselves without it really affecting anyone else. (and without having to sign up to Threads themselves...)

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 22 points 11 months ago

Well, I said before I'll leave any servers that federate with Meta, and it's looking like that time.

[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (13 children)

I hate Zuck and Facebook as much as the next person, but I think the rollout is going slowly enough that we don’t need to fight about it yet.

The discussion is important and needs to be had, but it’s premature.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 17 points 11 months ago (11 children)

Is threads.net going to hit the top of "most defederated" list? People hate it even more than gab and truthsocial.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

I'm not too worried about Threads joining the metaverse. What Mark Zuckerberg has failed to realise is just how barebones his Twitter clone is.

Mastodon has support for trending topics and hashtags. Threads doesn't. Lacking such an absolutely basic feature that any microblogging platform would otherwise support is why Threads dropped from 500M active users to just a fraction of it.

I joined it near launch, made a few posts and then stopped. There is nothing worthwhile on Threads and I don't think leeching on to the fediverse.

Also, I can kinda understand why you all rushed to defederate from Gab when they tried to jump on the federation bandwagon, but not Meta.

Zuckerberg doesn't need us to overtake X. He needs to actually make a functional social media app first, then put more resources into moderating it.

X is still on top despite Elon Musk's stewardship because his competitors are either too small (most federated instances), require too big of a technical hurdle for the average Joe to use (the fediverse in general), or are downright incompetent (Threads.)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheLurker@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (25 children)

Oh look, more elitism posts.

So you want an alternative to large closed source proprietary platforms, but don't want to allow anyone who doesn't use it via a "preapproved" list of providers?

The level of irony in these posts is astounding.

[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Yeah not wanting to associate with cancerbook is elitism

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] Delusion6903@discuss.online 14 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Too bad people on mastodon don't have the ability to block an instance they find objectionable for themselves-- oh wait.

Not sure about Lemmy, but we can do this on mastodon. I don't need someone else deciding for me.

Tldr? Couldn't disagree more

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I agree, I don't want a blanket ban on Threads. I know Meta is a horrible company, but we shouldn't decide in advance.

Honestly, I'd be very happy to be able to follow people on Threads through my privacy-respecting Mastodon/Lemmy app. Because, let's be serious: we're just a bunch of nerds here. If I want to follow famous people or companies, I'm going to find them on Meta's platforms, not here.

ActivityPub lets me follow those accounts without using Meta's apps, which are famously riddled with ads, trackers and whatnot.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bulwark@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's the face you make when the hamster in your ass sneezes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›