▲ 340 ▼ YSK: Threads soon joining the fediverse. (lemmy.world) submitted 3 years ago by Puzzlehead@lemmy.world to c/youshouldknow@lemmy.world 96 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/1085036 I personally feel as if its like polluting the fediverse!
[–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 46 points 3 years ago (3 children) And is going to be defederated by everyone... They should put a hard-coded Meta blocker into activityhub... permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 21 points 3 years ago (1 child) Arbitrarily blocking an actor at the protocol level is directly contrary to the entire point of decentralized protocols in the first place. I know, Meta bad, but the fact of the matter is that they probably won't be defederated by everyone, actually, because the idea of being able interact with your real friends and family and other people you know is going to be enticing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 12 points 3 years ago I want their products to fail so miserably that they regret coming here, and if i have to host several bot instances to spam the worst shit imaginable on their shitty platform. I don't want Facebook to be a part of the internet in the future, they can go bankrupt. They don't deserve the internet. I know there won't be a Meta filter in activityhub, its just a wish. permalink fedilink source parent [–] reclipse@lemdro.id 7 points 3 years ago* (1 child) They should put a hard-coded Meta blocker into activityhub That will never happen permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 5 points 3 years ago I know. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rikudou@lemmings.world -5 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) Not really, censorship isn't the solution. Edit: I just woke up when I wrote the original comment and I can see that it's not the clearest piece of text I've ever produced. What I meant is that I fully agree with defederating (and I'll do it on my instance), but I don't think censoring Meta in the core technology (ActivityPub) is the way to go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 3 years ago (2 children) It literally is, do you not see the power dynamics here? If the fediverse is to defend itself it must at all cost not federate with Meta or we will end up like XMPP. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I agree with that. I disagree with this part: They should put a hard-coded Meta blocker into activityhub Though I can see that my comment might seem very misleading (in my defense, I just woke up when I wrote it). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) Understandable, but I myself think a Meta block ought be a changeable but default option on most fediverse software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Changeable definitely, would have to think about whether default block is the smart thing to do. It's hard, I really dislike Meta, but on the other hand if you go censoring instances by default, where does it stop? IMO this should be the job of articles that tell you how to setup Lemmy, mentioning something like "Note that by default you also allow Meta the access to your instance which might mean privacy breach, here's how you disable it." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) Many admins are lazy, and they expect their software to run well on sensible defaults, most won't care and just go with whatever the devs consider to be fine. By choosing wether Meta is blocked or not by default the fediverse will have to take a stance. Do we allow extremely powerful corporations that want to monopolize their influence but we get a user surge in the short term. Or do we block them by default and anyone making an instance should make the concious choice to join the corpo-verse themselves so we can continue to foster a healthier alternative to whatever they are cooking. I'd rather have the latter. permalink fedilink source parent [–] reclipse@lemdro.id 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Meta doesn't need Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon. They are competing with Twitter. Threads will probably have more users than the whole fediverse combined within the first few days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) That's known, but it's foolish to think that for example Mastodon isn't seen as a Twitter alternative. Meta knows that and I think they want to not just be a corporate alternative to twitter, they want to make sure they are the alternative to twitter. The Fediverse has to take measures defending itself or Threads will overtake and stomp over everything, even if the sudden user surge might be appealing to some. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reclipse@lemdro.id 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) The measure taken should not be outright defederation. But ofcourse that is upto the instance admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago Exactly, it's free software so.instance admins ought to be able to decide, but the devs should nudge them into a preffered direction. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Its not censorship and its not up to you, the instances are run by private people, they can defederate whatever they want. If you don't like it use their "service" problem is that due to federation its very problematic to forward data to Facebook, especially for European Servers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 1 point 3 years ago My comment was a little misleading, I updated it with what I actually meant. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 21 points 3 years ago (1 child) Arbitrarily blocking an actor at the protocol level is directly contrary to the entire point of decentralized protocols in the first place. I know, Meta bad, but the fact of the matter is that they probably won't be defederated by everyone, actually, because the idea of being able interact with your real friends and family and other people you know is going to be enticing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 12 points 3 years ago I want their products to fail so miserably that they regret coming here, and if i have to host several bot instances to spam the worst shit imaginable on their shitty platform. I don't want Facebook to be a part of the internet in the future, they can go bankrupt. They don't deserve the internet. I know there won't be a Meta filter in activityhub, its just a wish. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 12 points 3 years ago I want their products to fail so miserably that they regret coming here, and if i have to host several bot instances to spam the worst shit imaginable on their shitty platform. I don't want Facebook to be a part of the internet in the future, they can go bankrupt. They don't deserve the internet. I know there won't be a Meta filter in activityhub, its just a wish. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reclipse@lemdro.id 7 points 3 years ago* (1 child) They should put a hard-coded Meta blocker into activityhub That will never happen permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 5 points 3 years ago I know. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rikudou@lemmings.world -5 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) Not really, censorship isn't the solution. Edit: I just woke up when I wrote the original comment and I can see that it's not the clearest piece of text I've ever produced. What I meant is that I fully agree with defederating (and I'll do it on my instance), but I don't think censoring Meta in the core technology (ActivityPub) is the way to go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 3 years ago (2 children) It literally is, do you not see the power dynamics here? If the fediverse is to defend itself it must at all cost not federate with Meta or we will end up like XMPP. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I agree with that. I disagree with this part: They should put a hard-coded Meta blocker into activityhub Though I can see that my comment might seem very misleading (in my defense, I just woke up when I wrote it). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) Understandable, but I myself think a Meta block ought be a changeable but default option on most fediverse software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Changeable definitely, would have to think about whether default block is the smart thing to do. It's hard, I really dislike Meta, but on the other hand if you go censoring instances by default, where does it stop? IMO this should be the job of articles that tell you how to setup Lemmy, mentioning something like "Note that by default you also allow Meta the access to your instance which might mean privacy breach, here's how you disable it." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) Many admins are lazy, and they expect their software to run well on sensible defaults, most won't care and just go with whatever the devs consider to be fine. By choosing wether Meta is blocked or not by default the fediverse will have to take a stance. Do we allow extremely powerful corporations that want to monopolize their influence but we get a user surge in the short term. Or do we block them by default and anyone making an instance should make the concious choice to join the corpo-verse themselves so we can continue to foster a healthier alternative to whatever they are cooking. I'd rather have the latter. permalink fedilink source parent [–] reclipse@lemdro.id 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Meta doesn't need Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon. They are competing with Twitter. Threads will probably have more users than the whole fediverse combined within the first few days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) That's known, but it's foolish to think that for example Mastodon isn't seen as a Twitter alternative. Meta knows that and I think they want to not just be a corporate alternative to twitter, they want to make sure they are the alternative to twitter. The Fediverse has to take measures defending itself or Threads will overtake and stomp over everything, even if the sudden user surge might be appealing to some. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reclipse@lemdro.id 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) The measure taken should not be outright defederation. But ofcourse that is upto the instance admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago Exactly, it's free software so.instance admins ought to be able to decide, but the devs should nudge them into a preffered direction. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Its not censorship and its not up to you, the instances are run by private people, they can defederate whatever they want. If you don't like it use their "service" problem is that due to federation its very problematic to forward data to Facebook, especially for European Servers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 1 point 3 years ago My comment was a little misleading, I updated it with what I actually meant. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 3 years ago (2 children) It literally is, do you not see the power dynamics here? If the fediverse is to defend itself it must at all cost not federate with Meta or we will end up like XMPP. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I agree with that. I disagree with this part: They should put a hard-coded Meta blocker into activityhub Though I can see that my comment might seem very misleading (in my defense, I just woke up when I wrote it). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) Understandable, but I myself think a Meta block ought be a changeable but default option on most fediverse software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Changeable definitely, would have to think about whether default block is the smart thing to do. It's hard, I really dislike Meta, but on the other hand if you go censoring instances by default, where does it stop? IMO this should be the job of articles that tell you how to setup Lemmy, mentioning something like "Note that by default you also allow Meta the access to your instance which might mean privacy breach, here's how you disable it." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) Many admins are lazy, and they expect their software to run well on sensible defaults, most won't care and just go with whatever the devs consider to be fine. By choosing wether Meta is blocked or not by default the fediverse will have to take a stance. Do we allow extremely powerful corporations that want to monopolize their influence but we get a user surge in the short term. Or do we block them by default and anyone making an instance should make the concious choice to join the corpo-verse themselves so we can continue to foster a healthier alternative to whatever they are cooking. I'd rather have the latter. permalink fedilink source parent [–] reclipse@lemdro.id 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Meta doesn't need Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon. They are competing with Twitter. Threads will probably have more users than the whole fediverse combined within the first few days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) That's known, but it's foolish to think that for example Mastodon isn't seen as a Twitter alternative. Meta knows that and I think they want to not just be a corporate alternative to twitter, they want to make sure they are the alternative to twitter. The Fediverse has to take measures defending itself or Threads will overtake and stomp over everything, even if the sudden user surge might be appealing to some. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reclipse@lemdro.id 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) The measure taken should not be outright defederation. But ofcourse that is upto the instance admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago Exactly, it's free software so.instance admins ought to be able to decide, but the devs should nudge them into a preffered direction. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I agree with that. I disagree with this part: They should put a hard-coded Meta blocker into activityhub Though I can see that my comment might seem very misleading (in my defense, I just woke up when I wrote it). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) Understandable, but I myself think a Meta block ought be a changeable but default option on most fediverse software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Changeable definitely, would have to think about whether default block is the smart thing to do. It's hard, I really dislike Meta, but on the other hand if you go censoring instances by default, where does it stop? IMO this should be the job of articles that tell you how to setup Lemmy, mentioning something like "Note that by default you also allow Meta the access to your instance which might mean privacy breach, here's how you disable it." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) Many admins are lazy, and they expect their software to run well on sensible defaults, most won't care and just go with whatever the devs consider to be fine. By choosing wether Meta is blocked or not by default the fediverse will have to take a stance. Do we allow extremely powerful corporations that want to monopolize their influence but we get a user surge in the short term. Or do we block them by default and anyone making an instance should make the concious choice to join the corpo-verse themselves so we can continue to foster a healthier alternative to whatever they are cooking. I'd rather have the latter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) Understandable, but I myself think a Meta block ought be a changeable but default option on most fediverse software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Changeable definitely, would have to think about whether default block is the smart thing to do. It's hard, I really dislike Meta, but on the other hand if you go censoring instances by default, where does it stop? IMO this should be the job of articles that tell you how to setup Lemmy, mentioning something like "Note that by default you also allow Meta the access to your instance which might mean privacy breach, here's how you disable it." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) Many admins are lazy, and they expect their software to run well on sensible defaults, most won't care and just go with whatever the devs consider to be fine. By choosing wether Meta is blocked or not by default the fediverse will have to take a stance. Do we allow extremely powerful corporations that want to monopolize their influence but we get a user surge in the short term. Or do we block them by default and anyone making an instance should make the concious choice to join the corpo-verse themselves so we can continue to foster a healthier alternative to whatever they are cooking. I'd rather have the latter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Changeable definitely, would have to think about whether default block is the smart thing to do. It's hard, I really dislike Meta, but on the other hand if you go censoring instances by default, where does it stop? IMO this should be the job of articles that tell you how to setup Lemmy, mentioning something like "Note that by default you also allow Meta the access to your instance which might mean privacy breach, here's how you disable it." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) Many admins are lazy, and they expect their software to run well on sensible defaults, most won't care and just go with whatever the devs consider to be fine. By choosing wether Meta is blocked or not by default the fediverse will have to take a stance. Do we allow extremely powerful corporations that want to monopolize their influence but we get a user surge in the short term. Or do we block them by default and anyone making an instance should make the concious choice to join the corpo-verse themselves so we can continue to foster a healthier alternative to whatever they are cooking. I'd rather have the latter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) Many admins are lazy, and they expect their software to run well on sensible defaults, most won't care and just go with whatever the devs consider to be fine. By choosing wether Meta is blocked or not by default the fediverse will have to take a stance. Do we allow extremely powerful corporations that want to monopolize their influence but we get a user surge in the short term. Or do we block them by default and anyone making an instance should make the concious choice to join the corpo-verse themselves so we can continue to foster a healthier alternative to whatever they are cooking. I'd rather have the latter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reclipse@lemdro.id 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Meta doesn't need Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon. They are competing with Twitter. Threads will probably have more users than the whole fediverse combined within the first few days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) That's known, but it's foolish to think that for example Mastodon isn't seen as a Twitter alternative. Meta knows that and I think they want to not just be a corporate alternative to twitter, they want to make sure they are the alternative to twitter. The Fediverse has to take measures defending itself or Threads will overtake and stomp over everything, even if the sudden user surge might be appealing to some. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reclipse@lemdro.id 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) The measure taken should not be outright defederation. But ofcourse that is upto the instance admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago Exactly, it's free software so.instance admins ought to be able to decide, but the devs should nudge them into a preffered direction. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) That's known, but it's foolish to think that for example Mastodon isn't seen as a Twitter alternative. Meta knows that and I think they want to not just be a corporate alternative to twitter, they want to make sure they are the alternative to twitter. The Fediverse has to take measures defending itself or Threads will overtake and stomp over everything, even if the sudden user surge might be appealing to some. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reclipse@lemdro.id 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) The measure taken should not be outright defederation. But ofcourse that is upto the instance admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago Exactly, it's free software so.instance admins ought to be able to decide, but the devs should nudge them into a preffered direction. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reclipse@lemdro.id 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) The measure taken should not be outright defederation. But ofcourse that is upto the instance admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago Exactly, it's free software so.instance admins ought to be able to decide, but the devs should nudge them into a preffered direction. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 years ago Exactly, it's free software so.instance admins ought to be able to decide, but the devs should nudge them into a preffered direction. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Its not censorship and its not up to you, the instances are run by private people, they can defederate whatever they want. If you don't like it use their "service" problem is that due to federation its very problematic to forward data to Facebook, especially for European Servers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 1 point 3 years ago My comment was a little misleading, I updated it with what I actually meant. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 1 point 3 years ago My comment was a little misleading, I updated it with what I actually meant. permalink fedilink source parent
