4
How Threads will integrate with the Fediverse (plasticbag.org)
submitted 10 months ago by 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social to c/fediverse@kbin.social
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] 0xtero@beehaw.org 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

"DM me on Twitter" perhaps wasn't the best way to start a post about fediverse, but OK, I got through it...
That article was a hot mess.

First of all, over half of that article was based on misunderstanding of how fedi and ActivityPub works. Meta will not just "push their content" out to the fediverse and drown it - even if they fully adapt and integrate ActivityPub (which was still marked as TBD in the roapmap). ActivityPub is not a broadcast protocol. There is no "global federated feed" that can drown you. Someone actually has to subscribe to users and their posts for them to show up on their instances. Sure, some additional messages will be "discovered" during that (likes and re-posts etc), but it's not like all of Threads just flows into all fediverse servers automatically.

My timeline is posts from people who I follow. My local timeline are posts from people on my server. My federated timeline is all public posts from people (from other servers) that users on my server follow. It is trivial for me (as an individual) to domain block *.threads.net in my Mastodon user profile and then I will never see any posts from that server.

The chapter about content moderation was also a bit misleading. On fediverse side of things, content moderation is done by instance mods. If and perhaps more likely, when it becomes too much work to deal with, they will simply just defederate or limit Threads.

I'd imagine most smaller server admins and mods will eventually end up doing this, because they simply don't have resources to moderate the message flow from a server that has hundreds of millions of users - this is already evident with mastodon.social and the other larger servers. Lot of places have defederated them.

But this is all working as intended. Defederation isn't controversial, it happens all the time.

The actual moderation problem is entirely on Meta's side. The fedi is full of bad stuff. Really bad, like CSAM. They will have to deal with all those kiddyporn .jp instances. Good luck telling that your shareholders Zuck.

There are some real problems with Threads integration, but none of those were mentioned. I don't want Threads to monetize my content. If I post something on Mastodon and a person from Threads follows me, I don't want Threads to show them ads based on what I wrote. But currently there's no way to prevent that.

Also, if I should follow someone from Threads, there's nothing preventing Meta from inserting an ad into that persons "Outbox" and therefore serving it to me on Mastodon. Sure, they'd be impersonating that user, but their whole business model is based on showing ads and datamining the clicks, so would be naive to think they wouldn't enable ads on Threads later on.

Of course the last problem is easy to solve by blocking Threads, but you get my drift..

[-] sab@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

It's almost - almost - as if this is what ActivityPub was designed for.

[-] CJOtheReal@ani.social 4 points 10 months ago

Not at all. They get defederated. Fuck em.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago

I think one of the points - and strengths - of the Fediverse is that a single person or instance can’t make that choice for others.

[-] CJOtheReal@ani.social 2 points 10 months ago

Most lemmy instances defederated that Facebook BS factory right after it was announced.

True, a single person cant, but everyone agrees that Facebook can go fuck itself and that it ain't getting the stuff from us.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

So - counter-example. I'm working with a UK organisation that currently still uses Twitter. I'm trying to persuade them to start their own Mastodon instance instead. Being able to reach Threads users, in addition to Masto uses would clearly be substantial selling point of setting up a Mastodon server - given the size of the Threads userbase - and much preferable to them starting a Threads account.

[-] CJOtheReal@ani.social 0 points 10 months ago

Thats a different story.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

How so? It's a direct benefit of federation

[-] JackRiddle@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago

It would be right now, but the first step of Embrace Extend Extinguish is that: Embrace. Opening up to threads now might be extremely detrimental to the fediverse in the future, in the same way as happened with XMPP.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago

By this argument nothing should ever interoperate with anything else because clearly that's the first step toward destruction.

I'm writing this on Firefox, which interoperates with Chrome and Edge. Oh no! We need to get these browsers operating on incompatible protocols stat, before they all extend and extinguish each other.

In reality, "embrace extend extinguish" is not a law of nature. XMPP is not ActivityPub. They are separate things with separate circumstances. Did you know that XMPP is actually still functional and open and you can download clients and servers that use it to this day? The stories about how Google "destroyed" it have become wildly distorted folklore at this point.

[-] sab@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

God forbid if Microsoft decided to use open document formats by default and to phase out docx - it would clearly be the first step of EEE!

God forbid companies use the world wide web - they'll run it down the gutter!

The standards must be protected at all costs - may they never see mass adoption.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

It might, yes. But I think the risk can be managed, with defederation if need be. I don’t think existing Fediverse users are suddenly going to defect.

[-] NotTheOnlyGamer@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

Maybe on your instance - it's your loss. But admins have a choice - defed from them and lose access to all those users and having actual content worth looking at, or federate with them and actually grow your network into something that has enough going on to make people interested. As it is, I use Threads right now. I strongly prefer it to Mastodon. Kbin comes close, but has less content to idly scroll through. If no Fediverse site I use supports Threads, I'll keep on using it.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

I'll take a smaller volume of stuff from people who want to engage over the quality of mass produced lowesr common denominator content that will come from Meta products.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

The great thing about the Fediverse is that you can choose that even if Threads federates. You pick what you engage with, which communities and instances you subscribe to and which you block.

[-] CJOtheReal@ani.social 0 points 10 months ago

Ok, bad for you, you get Facebook in your life.

[-] sab@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Yes, indeed - which is why it would be good for them if Threads federated, and they could reach their network without using a Meta service.

For some users the network is a really important part of social networks.

[-] CJOtheReal@ani.social 0 points 10 months ago

By federating you do use their stuff. Also the people there are reportedly pretty ew.

[-] sab@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

A bunch of people are pretty disgusting on the established fediverse as well. It's just that nobody has a way of imposing themselves in your feed.

And I don't use Lemmy, nor will I use Threads. I use services that broadcas information with both - that's different. I made a web site once, that doesn't make me a Google Chrome user. I send emails with Gmail users, but I still don't use Gmail. I just co-exist with people who do.

[-] leaskovski@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

That would be a shame. Why shouldn't I be able to directly tell Mark to go fuck himself without going anywhere near his software?

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

Why can't you do that? Use one of the many non-Threads servers to do it. Like Kbin, the one you're already using. Nothing about it changes if Threads federates.

[-] CJOtheReal@ani.social 1 points 10 months ago

Because i don't want him to even know i exist...

And you are getting into his software, your stuff gets federated and they are likely to try and federate ads into the cloud.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

If you want to stay private, probably avoid a networking protocol like ActivityPub that inherently relies on essentially everything being public

[-] CJOtheReal@ani.social 0 points 10 months ago

I want to stay as far away from Facebook as possible, my actual private data is safe because the login stuff doesn't get federated and there isn't much of it.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

I don't mean to alarm you, but Meta can see this post even if Threads doesn't federate.

[-] CJOtheReal@ani.social 0 points 10 months ago

I mean obviously, but why gift it to them on a silver plate?

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Why not? It's no different as far as Meta is concerned, it only inconveniences us.

[-] lemonflavoured@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

I'm pretty sure most people don't want it to...

[-] sab@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

There's something like 50 million Threads users. Chances are there's at least a few people out there who would be happy to be able to connect with at least some of those 50 million people, without having to use Threads themselves.

As an academic, I would just be happy if I could reach my peers on Mastodon. I don't really give a fuck which platform they choose to use - I've chosen mine, and that's enough for me.

Furthermore, what's even the point of open standards if you don't want them to be adopted.

[-] david_megginson@mstdn.ca 4 points 10 months ago

@sab If Threads plays by the rules, they're welcome, but if they fail to meet our moderation standards (as they likely will), we shouldn't give them any special treatment.

Also, federating with Threads might not be as big a prospect as we originally thought. Daily active users had fallen by 80% last summer when Meta stopped releasing official numbers. It could be that the numbers have improved since, but then why not make a big deal over it?

[-] sab@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Absolutely - if they federate and it turns out to be a problem, there's no reason one should be more patient with Threads than with any other poorly moderated instance. But in all likelihood the slimy parts of Threads will very rarely make it to the feeds of anyone not actively looking for it.

[-] david_megginson@mstdn.ca 0 points 10 months ago

@sab I think the concern is more about tens/hundreds of thousands of toxic bros from Threads jumping into conversations on the fedi. We'll know enough not to follow them, but they'll be able to find us.

The fedi already has every kind of hate and -phobia and -ism present, of course, but if the wrong people from Threads get involved, that could go up by an order of magnitude and push us past a tipping point where our network of volunteer moderators just can't keep up.

#Threads #fediverse

[-] sab@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

If a threads user is so hellbent on finding and ruining conversations over at Mastodon or whereever, it would probably be easier for them just to sign up for a Mastodon instance in the first place. I don't think Threads federating is going to make it all that much easier for the trolls.

[-] Wowwoweowza@mastodon.social 0 points 10 months ago

@david_megginson @sab — so… thugs have Truth Social, X, and Threads. How are they seeping into a Mastodon?

[-] sab@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

There's already a bunch of awful Mastodon servers! It's just that the way the whole system is designed makes them easy to mariginalize.

[-] lemonflavoured@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Furthermore, what's even the point of open standards if you don't want them to be adopted.

Well, yes. There does seem to be a lot of "we want open standards but we don't want big companies to use them" among fediverse users.

[-] FinchHaven@sfba.social 0 points 10 months ago

@sab

"Furthermore, what's even the point of open standards if you don't want them to be adopted"

JFC

Didn't I reply to exactly this point somewhere else yesterday?

Here:

"Using "open protocols/standards" does not translate to "accept any content from anywhere"

It's just like "Free Speech"

You can say any damn thing you want, but I am under no obligation whatsoever to read or listen to anything you say

Right?"

Nor does it require any sysadmin to accept any content from anywhere

cc @0x1C3B00DA @lemonflavoured

[-] sab@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

This makes no sense whatsoever. You could want Meta to use ActivityPub, say it's a good thing that they use an open standard, and still say you have no interest in communicating with them and stick to services where they are defederated.

You don't have an obligation to read every email you receive just because it's an open standard.

There's no logical connection between services using activitypub and you bring forced to connect to them. So I guess at least that's a point to your free speech example.

this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

17 readers
1 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the federated social networking ecosystem, which includes decentralized and open-source social media platforms. Whether you are a user, developer, or simply interested in the concept of decentralized social media, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as the benefits and challenges of decentralized social media, new and existing federated platforms, and more. From the latest developments and trends to ethical considerations and the future of federated social media, this category covers a wide range of topics related to the Fediverse.

founded 2 years ago