Skip Navigation

Threads Continues to Copy Twitter's Worst Elements With New Rate Limits

gizmodo.com Threads Continues to Copy Twitter's Worst Elements With New Rate Limits

Twitter also previously limited the number of posts users could see, but Musk’s previous implementation also broke the bird app.

Threads Continues to Copy Twitter's Worst Elements With New Rate Limits
37

You're viewing a single thread.

37 comments
  • If you join a social network that *Mark owns, you get what you deserve, and he gets all your correspondence to mine and sell forever and ever and ever, tying it into all the other data the web has "anonymously" collected about you, even using different usernames, vpn's, and email addresses. ta dah!

    • Which would be way funnier if Meta's terms of service didn't purposefully include third party users in their collection:

      Information From Third Party Services and Users:

      We collect information about the Third Party Services and Third Party Users who interact with Threads. If you interact with Threads through a Third Party Service (such as by following Threads users, interacting with Threads content, or by allowing Threads users to follow you or interact with your content), we collect information about your third-party account and profile (such as your username, profile picture, IP address, and the name of the Third Party Service on which you are registered), your content (such as when you allow Threads users to follow, like, reshare, or have mentions in your posts), and your interactions (such as when you follow, like, reshare, or have mentions in Threads posts).

      i.e., if I remain as literate as I think I am, it seems to me that the only ways for users on the fediverse to avoid giving over everything and the kitchen sink to the clutches of the dubiously human overlord are to:

      1. Defederate any and all Threads instances forever, no take backs.

      2. Not have a fediverse account.

    • Do you mean Mark? Or is there a Jack at Meta that I haven't heard about

You've viewed 37 comments.