Erik Moeller on Mastodon: There's a common false dichotomy about Threads [...]
Erik Moeller on Mastodon: There's a common false dichotomy about Threads [...]
There's a common false dichotomy about #Threads: cut them off, or leave it to user choice.
I can't speak to other software, but Mastodon offers a third option: limiting Threads. This can be done for all users of a server.
- You can follow Threads accounts after clicking through a warning.
- People who don't follow those same people won't see their posts.
- You have to manually approve followers _from_ Threads.
Basically, it puts Threads in quarantine, without cutting off all connections.
I like that option for our server, social.coop, and it's the one we voted to implement earlier this year.
We know that Threads already hosts bad actors (e.g., LibsOfTikTok). We know some reasonable folks have set up shop there and will continue to flee there from X.
This option makes it clear that Threads is not a safe space, while allowing limited connections.
Every instance will implement the option that makes sense to them, of course.
Can anyone help me understand what any Mastodon instance can possibly stand to gain by federating with Threads? The size disparity is absolutely massive. Anything going to Threads will be lost like a drop in the ocean and anything coming from Threads will be a deluge that drowns anything on Mastodon. You can limit your instance to only one of these but it's still bad.
Following Threads posters from a Mastodon client sounds ok at first, your users can get lots of Threads content, they get accustomed to it, and one day Meta changes the protocol and now you have to decide if you're a Mastodon or a Threads client. Or your users start wondering why they're using a subpar Threads client when most of their content is on there.
40One of the main reasons I like using Mastodon for work is the fact that it's completely separate from the large social networks. It's only used by people who are committed to creating a new, better place. I don't think users of Threads (or Xitter, for that matter) would have anything to offer for me.
19It actually isn't that big. It grew a lot initially because people on Instagram were practically forced to join (or so I've heard), but then activity died down very quickly (www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/tech/th…).
I'd say the ability to interact with the high-profile accounts on threads via Masto makes it a much more attractive alternative for many, although I personally have no interest in doing so.
17I’d say the ability to interact with the high-profile accounts on threads via Masto makes it a much more attractive alternative for many, although I personally have no interest in doing so.
I'd rather we deliberately boycott high-profile accounts until they come to their senses and move to Mastodon.
6
There's a false dichotomy about about storing #DogShit in your refrigerator: don't do it, or just smear it all over the entire interior.
I can't speak to other appliances, but refrigerators offer a third option: partitioning the dog shit. This can be for anyone with a refrigerator.
- You can select a dedicated area for the dog shit, like the vegetable drawer; users will know it's full of dog shit because of the warning provided by the smell.
- People who don't open the vegetable drawer won't have to see the dog shit.
- You'll have to manually open the vegetable drawer to access the dog shit.
Basically, it puts the dog shit in quarantine, without taking up all the interior space for your food.
I like that option for our refrigerator, social.poop, and it's the one we voted to implement earlier this year.
We know that dog shit already hosts biohazards (e.g., Giardia). We know that some reasonable folks have already stepped in it while attempting to dodge some other kind of shit.
This option makes it clear that dog shit isn't safe to store in your fridge, while allowing coprophiles to do exactly that.
Every household will implement the option that makes sense to them, of course.
31That's grand
12a long form nuanced take
interesting, however have you considered pee pee poo poo
Truly a worthy contribution to the discourse, thank you...
8
This doesn't solve the problem of sending Threads a copy of absolutely every bit of activity that happens on the instance. If I'm on an instance that federates with Threads, even if I put them out of sight/out of mind, they still get a copy of everything I do. A lot of people are on the fediverse for privacy reasons, yet here we are with people begging to hand Facebook this data on a silver platter.
"But why hide information that's public? They could just scrape it."
Yes, they could. But a real-time feed of activity is more complete, easier to manage, and doesn't require them to go and build a scraping tool just for this.
If I don't want Threads to have any of my data sent to them, I should be able to choose without needing to leave an instance I've been on for potentially years.
13ActivityPub doesn't just push everything on a server to every federated instance like a fire hose. In the first place, as Masimatutu@mander.xyz said, it only feeds your content to an instance if somebody on that instance follows you, which you can set to require your manual approval. Your posts could also get pushed if somebody else boosts your post and they have followers on the other instance.
However, if you set an instance block, none of your posts get sent to the instance, period. They would have to resort to scraping. In other words, if you don't want to give meta your data, just set an instance/domain block.
8Permanently Deleted
5
people are so naive, agin and again. if anyone thinks this is anything other than facebook trying to kill the alternatives, they should look at the history of gtalk/xmpp.
mastodon is a viable alternative to twitter, and this means that anyone can go: "there can be other alternatives". like reddit/lemmy, instagram/pixelfed, youtube/peertube, twitch/owncast, etc. and this is not good for business.
8"I don't know why they 'trust me.' Dumb fucks." - Zuckerberg
7Whether or not they have it in the back of their greasy little minds somewhere that they'd like to kill of every alternative that can't be bought out instead, this is also facebook desperately trying to stay relevant. If they don't federate, it's all or nothing: Unless they become completely dominant in the field of mastodon-like social media services their product will be quickly forgotten. If they do federate, they have some chance to survive if only by being known as the one, alone among the current billion-user contenders, that does actually federate.
3Come on, Facebook is not trying to do anything. They don't care about mastodon and their pathetic million of users. Facebook is trying stuff hoping something will stick,that's all. Threads is not their main app and they are losing on it.
1
but i want my knee jerk reaction to a static world! quit makin' sense!
6I don't get it, I know the posts of these apps look similar, but these are two very different apps. One has verified users with phone numbers, with names and surnames, posting about their lives and selling products.
Well, actually mastodon would have more of those of it were bigger. But the content is different.
If mastodon users would just see the threads content, but not be able to interact normally, then I think it's obvious this is bad for mastodon and instances should defederate. But Facebook doesn't care about a few mastodon users either way. Maybe they just want an option to be a part of it when twitter goes down, try and get a piece of it.
1