41% of fediverse instances have blocked threads so far!!!
Attached: 1 image 41% of fediverse instances have threads blocked!!!!! source: https://social.tchncs.de/@mialikescoffee/111607872804167774 #FediPact #threads #meta
Dumb. Federation is how we escape from every cloud-based service being a dictatorship of the person who owns the platform. That includes federating with privately own orgs to provide them an exit.
By all means make good tools to allow individual users to block Threads (or other private instances ruled by amoral coporations), but doing it at instance level is just dumb.
edit: also, number of instances doesn't matter. Number of daily active users matters. Most users are on mastodon.social, mastodon.cloud, lemmy.world, hachyderm.io, lemmy.world, etc. And all of those are federating. The only large instance that is not federating with threads is mas.to
What I hate to see, even in this thread, is people turning on each other in this "us vs. them", "you're either a part of the pact or you're against us" nonsense
Let's all remember why WE ALL CHOSE to get on the fediverse and build it. The strength of the fediverse comes from the freedom for each instance to choose how to run things. My understanding is that no one in an instance is harmed if some other instance chooses to federate or defederate from Threads.
I hate Meta. I also know that Meta doesn't need to do anything to take down the fediverse if we do it ourselves.
Part of it is just today's polarized political climate, especially since the popularity of the Fediverse is partially a backlash to reactionaries taking over Twitter and the corporate enshittification of Facebook and Reddit.
Everything is a war now, and solidarity and boycotts are basically the only weapons that small, independent actors have. So people apply "don't cross the picket line" thinking to everything, even where it doesn't make sense.
Want to act properly? Contribute money and labour towards your instances. Help them build better moderation tools so they can handle the flood of crap from Threads, and onboarding tools and better UX so they can steal away the Threads users.
a house divided…
Meta has no interest in being part of the fediverse, it only wants to eliminate any posible competition.
The usual MO of buying the competitors isn't posible on the fediverse, so the way to do it is embrace, extend and extinguish
Defederating is important because is Metastasis is allowed in the fediverse it will consume the fediverse, and then we'll be right back at the corporate social media we're trying to break away from, with the surveillance, ads and nazis being welcome as long as it's profitable
is Metastasis is allowed in the fediverse it will consume the fediverse
How?
I've seen the article about Google and XMPP, but I don't agree with its analysis. It wasn't easy to find service providers offering XMPP accounts to the public in 2004. I do not believe that Google embraced, extended, and extinguished a thriving ecosystem; there never was a thriving XMPP ecosystem.
There is a thriving ecosystem for federated microblogging, and federated discussions. While I'm sure Meta would like us to join their service, I'm not sure how allowing their users to interact with us will have that effect, nor how blocking that communication protects against it.
Utterly idiotic.
Facebook has for 20 years proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted and it is not beneficial for Internet users.
Yet still dumbarse cry over how mean we are to not want them here.
Get this through your fucking head people, Facebook does not have your best intentions at heart. You exist in this space purely for them to exploit. And they will find a way to do so here because that is their whole existence as a company.
I don't know why. They “trust me” Dumb fucks.
Forgive me for repeating this, but I think it's a great analogy and explains all of our thoughts about it:
I've used this analogy before, but threads is like a huge, 5k passenger cruise ship docking in a small town in Alaska. You don't have to know ahead of time that the 2 public bathrooms, one at the general store and the other at McDonalds, aren't going to be enough. You can also forecast the complaining about how everything isn't really tourist ready. It will suck for everyone. The small museum will be overrun and damaged, the people will be treated like dirt. It's an easy forecast.
Here's the important bit, just because they've never been in the cruise line business, doesn't mean you have to give them a chance to ruin your town.
Thank you, someone finally looking big picture. I see a lot of folks talking about things like "it won't harm Threads" or "the federation is all about inclusiveness and joining together" and those people, while correct on paper, are missing the point.
Put simply, many instances would prefer not to deal with that unnatural influx, and that is their choice. In fact, the best part of the fediverse is not only that they CAN make that choice it's that they can UNDO it later if need be. I can't fault some of these smaller instances for being proactive in protecting themselves when few here really know what goes into running and moderating.
See, this is the more reasonable concern. Moderating a fediverse instance is hard, and the flood of posts coming from Threads might be a bad problem. That's a case where I understand the need to defederate. But on the other hand, that doesn't feel like a solution that needs to be done proactively - defederating from Threads if/when Threads users become a problem seems perfectly reasonable.
What does that even mean in this context though?
The federated timeline is ready FULL of shit I don’t care about, have no idea what it is, or can’t read it because it’s another language due to people not being able to set their language correctly.
The only time I’m going to see threads content is if it is boosted by someone I follow (which I want), contains a hashtag I follow (which I want), or in the federated timeline I already don’t use.
I don’t see the issue.
It is not dumb. Thinking that this time it will be different is dumb:
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
When this was happening I was a huge proponent of Google, and Google Talk, recommending everyone I knew to switch to it, because Jabber with the help of Google will remove monopoly from AIM, MSN, YIM etc.
Google fucking killed the network and I contributed to it (maybe not in a significant way, but I still feel very bitter about it)
If you federate with something too massive though it has undue weight on the entire system. It is likely to be Embrace, Extend, Extinguish again, and it's reasonable to want to avoid that.
For people who don't remember, the pattern would be something like:
It depends whether 2 actually succeeds at pulling users in. Arguably most people already on the Fediverse are unlikely to jump ship to Facebook, but you have to consider what happens in a few years if it's grown, but Facebook is a huge name which makes people less likely to join other instances.
Personally, it's the implausibility of 2 that makes all of this seem like no big deal to me. In fact, I think federating openly with Threads might signal to Threads users that they can use alternatives and not lose access to whomever they follow on Threads, thus growing the user-base of other federated instances.
I think people who are going to use Threads for Meta-specific features are likely going to use Threads anyway, and if any of those features are genuinely good (i.e. not simply Instagram and Facebook tie-ins) they will be replicated by the various open Fediverse projects which already differ from one another in terms of features.
The moderation issue is entirely different and there are some instances that have an understanding with their users about protecting them from seeing any objectionable content or behavior as defined by whatever culture they have. Defederating from such a large group of people makes sense, perhaps even preemptively, no different from when they defederate existing large instances now.
The super cool thing is that you're more than welcome to start your own instance where they don't block it. Or move to an existing one. Because you know, the entire point is that instance admins are allowed to run their instance how they see fit.
I think the fear is that this turns into an "embrace, extend, extinguish". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
I don't know if the fear is well rooted, but I can definitely understand how Facebook is perceived as not having established a history of trust.
They are a private company, which have placed profits above the best interests of its users.
Edit: I think you can draw a parallel with another scenario: an open and free market requires regulation. There should be rules and boundaries, such that a true free and open market exists. Similarly, there's an argument to be made than we should restrict the fediverse for it to keep existing in the way we want it to.
If you just want a hassle-free way to view as much content as possible, there are instances that are federated with pretty much everyone - just have to do a little research. If you want to guarantee keeping post history AND have absolute control over what you can see, you're gonna have to put in the work to make your own instance.
Also -
them: it's ridiculous they aren't listening to the user
the instance: held a vote and the majority voted to defederate
Yeah, I wonder how many of those instances are primarily enthusiasts self-hosting.
Then change instances to one that doesn't block threads. It's that easy.
Moderators will basically be doing free work for meta. If a Lemmy.ml post blows up on threads then the ml mods will have to deal with the influx from threads users and basically moderate threads for free.
There's another reason to defederate. Most mods are volunteers. Lemmy currently really doesn't have the manpower to handle something with a userbase as large as Threads, and Facebook doesn't have a great track record with moderation, so it's unlikely they'd do anything about any issues in a timely manner.
Edit: kids -> mods, busy -> really; autocorrect was being stupid again.
0.19 allows for instance blocking, so the good tools will be available.
If this wasnt needed we wouldnt even think about doing it.
By all means make good tools to allow individual users to block Threads (or other private instances ruled by amoral coporations), but doing it at instance level is just dumb.
Say it louder for the children in the back.
This is the solution.
My friend… your instance has defederated from several other large instances already. If you were on a lemm.ee account then I could take your argument seriously. It’s like the US admonishing Venezuela for going oil hunting, China suggesting religious persecution is unacceptable, or Russia shouting about gay rights.
If you want threads, join threads or a threads friendly instance, but if you don't like the majority of the fediverse blocking threads then get fucked because this is what the people want.
Especially given that there was just an update allowing for individuals to block instances they don't like. Forcing this on the instance level is just nonsense, and exactly the sort of behavior most of us wanted to escape from. If I wanted my instance owner to just decide all of this random nonsense for me, I'd just go back to reddit. I'm glad my instance is leaving it up to me.
if you were to focus this on just Lemmy itself as opposed to the wider fedi ("Especially given that there was just an update allowing for individuals to block instances they don't like" implies that's the case) you already have nothing to worry about as you encountering a threads user here will be even slimmer than encountering a mastodon user.
threads is primarily targeting the microblog/personal side of fedi. the incentives and privacy expectations are quite different compared to this side of fedi
People seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about why Threads is adding ActivityPub support. It's not to destroy the fediverse. The fediverse is not in competition with Threads.
I keep on forgetting that “threads” (in lowercase) is frequently being used to refer to “Threads” the Facebook thing, and not separate sub-communities within the Fediverse.
Was getting all confused as to why Fediverse instances were internally blocking each other.
Y’all all need to learn capitalization, yo. Helps reduce confusion by turning certain things into the proper nouns that they actually are.
This is part of the EEE strategy. Why else would it be called Threads?
Thank you! I was so confused.
I keep thinking of the nuclear war movie every time I see that name. That shit's scarring
german capitalization is hard enough, leave me alone >:(
me fail english unpossible
FYI the 41% of instances that block or limit Threads (from the source data which doesn't have every instance), accounts for 24% of the user base of the fediverse.
24% honestly isn't bad. I kind of expected it to be less than that given how big some of the instances that haven't defederated are.
Yeah the active users on the Fedipact servers is pitiful. Goes to show its not a huge group but a noisy one. Why can't we just give everyone a fair go and if they suck worry about blocking then?
Also gives me a list of instances I'd never heard of probably because the activity is so small.
Maybe a hot take, but if you want this big libertarian anarchist federated system you get all the pros and cons along with it. Not having a central authority means you have no real power to stop someone from coming in and taking it. It’s inevitable by design.
I'd argue the system is working quite well, every individual and/or community has the liberty to choose what to do about Meta.
That's what federation is all about, no central power taking decisions in behalf of everyone else.
Sure, to a certain extent. But having an ability to opt out is far healthier than the walled gardens we have now.
There already is that someone, it's the owner of the .world instances.
Things like fedipact are the main way of dealing with such abuse in ancap.
Funny, I've never gave a thought to this before, but Fediverse works on ancap principles. Even in pushing out ancaps.
Not even generally libertarian, but specifically ancap.
It's also funny that the system I'm imagining and would prefer (if it weren't imaginary) is closer to being generally libertarian and further from ancap.
Someone should make a post about why blocking Threads is good and why it's not to be confused with gate keeping. If not properly communicated, this could look very badly for the uninitiated and they're not to blame.
Some people of course have an educated opinion against blocking, but many presumably don't know the reasons behind it.
Care to give a summary on why you think they should be blocked ahead of any bad acting? Yes, there is some concern about Meta attempting EEE, but ultimately they're a large platform that can bring a lot of users and attention to the Fediverse. There's nothing preventing large instances from blocking them down the line, and with user level instance blocking coming in 0.19 to Lemmy (not sure if Mastodon et al have something similar), you can block them personally yourself if you wish, rather than having that thrust upon you by your instance admins.
Their "test run" was only sending threads posts and not receiving any fediverse posts.
This is them shouting their intent, as far as i'm concerned.
No one has articulated it well. It's all just "meta bad". Can't we just defederate if they pull some crap and be no worse off than we are now?
Essentially because after they did something bad it's likely too late. But others can explain this in more detail with more knowledge than I have.
Shutup bro
I feel like that one instance not blocking threads should exist, like a common ground where people can interact and maybe convert threads user to leave big corpo and join us
It is gatekeeping, but gatekeeping in the way of "Stop corporate offices in this town" and not "Stop people who we don't think worthy from getting in".
As for why blocking threads is good, please google "Facebook Cambridge Analytica", "Facebook russian accounts" and "Facebook fake republican accounts". Also: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-knew-radicalized-users-rcna3581
Please don't treat facebook like a "decent corporation which only committed honest mistakes". It sold users' data to corporations, to the Kremlin, allowed users to be specifically targeted by extremist right-wing propaganda and spread disinformation about various international affairs.
Furthermore, there is absolutely zero guarantee that Facebook won't scan OUR posts for training AIs.
It's a known bad actor. Allowing Facebook into the fediverse would be as ludicrous as allowing Russians to live and establish bases in the US during the cold war.
Because , we know better than to trust lizard people.
Nailed it. No one can argue with that 🧠
EEE is the reason to defed
This is a great example to explain it to people who are familiar with the topic. But if I tell that to a "random" friend, word for word, they won't know what I'm talking about :D
Mob mentality?
ITT:
"Nobody understands fedipact, Jabber, activitypub, Ruby, embrace/extend/extinguish, mastodon, lemmy, Java, federation, Kubernetes, XMPP, Docker, architecture, carburetors, Ikebana, midwifery, Filipino stickfighting, Zoroastrianism, hegelian philosophy, or XML but me, and therefore you're all morons with nothing to contribute to this conversation".
I was with you in the first half…
Filipino looooool
I binged enough Zizek to think that I understand Hegel better than Hegel himself.
Slobneedajob Sizzlek
I Gott admit... "Filipino Stickfighting" sounded like it was a real Piece of existing Software 🫣
java is oracle
Could somebody explain what "fedipact" means?
An organized group of fediverse admins all united at not federating with Meta, i.e. against federation and also united in this goal
I left Facebook to get away from the brain rot. Please don't bring their demographic to spread here.
Allowing threads to federate is like allowing a virus to enter the system.
These "wait and see" dingdongs have somehow not learned from decades/centuries of history about how "hearing people out" in situations like this only leads to negative outcomes.
We'll let in a little Aunt Fash, Liberty Mom, candidate for Alaklabraska school board, as a treat
Different points of view will EnLiGhTeN
No offense but lemmy has its own brain rot and echo chambers. Not being exposed to the majority of the public reinforces a lot of this. You're just exchanging one kind of circlejerk for another.
I agree, but I've changed my stance to a wait and see approach. This is what we think will happen, will probably happen, and what I'm interested most of all in, is how Lemmy.world responds once things come to pass. I've got agency here to switch to another perfectly good instance that doesn't federate with Threads, so if Lemmy.world allows social toxicity to prosper...I'll just leave. The Fediverse rocks.
Still too few
If you don't like it, just move to an instance that defederates
Just what I did.
Ehm... Shouldn't Fediverse be... Open?
Meta is a company that is gonna join us in being open and when they get enough users to have their platform running organically they cut us off.
So Threads, which is has 140+ million users and has consistently grown since launch without federation is worried about "getting enough users" from the fediverse, which has less than 10 million?
Fedi users are also about a bajillion times less likely to migrate to a Meta product than the other way around. There was the opportunity to catch some people and help grow the fediverse, but between this and the mastodon HOA (pushes glasses umm excuse me you forgot to put a CW warning on your post about flowers a flower killed my dog when I was five and this is very problematic trauma you're causing and your alt-text should be at least 3 paragraphs and include a bibliography) it's likely the fediverse just did what it needed to ensure it stays a niche for like 3 audiences and that more people are stuck with the corpos if they want content that's not about being a communist or using linux.
Anyway, this is a step for Meta to avoid regulatory scrutiny. Everyone keeps saying how Meta is going to destroy the fedi (don't worry, we'll take care of it for them) but no one is saying how. For example, they cut us off? So what? We're cut off right now.
Okay? How would that effect us
Being open doesn't mean you let leeches enter your home
But they restore balance to my humors!
We don't need to tolerate nasty megacorporations.
relevant xkcd my friend ;) The fediverse is still open.
Not if they disagree with me!
Handy site to check your instances thread-blocking status.
What a fucking hateful choice of colours. Green for blocking and red for allowing communication. Really shows what kind of perspective the creator has.
Yeah, the color scheme is the real clue there. It's pretty subtle what their viewpoint is.
What's wrong with threads? I'm out of the loop.
Threads is Meta, one of the largest corporate enshitifiers on the internet - the crap most of us fled from that landed us in the fediverse in the first place.
...it's userbase is a relative ocean compared to the fediverse's drop, so the immediate concern is being able to moderate the tsunami of submissions; the long term concern is that things go peachy at first and the fediverse becomes so intertwined with Meta that it becomes functionally dependent on it... and then Meta decides to pull the plug, effectively destroying the parts of the fediverse that didn't defederate right out of the gate. This is called "EEE" or "embrace, extend, extinguish" as others have mentioned in this thread. It's a shitty thing bigger tech can do to destroy budding competition before it has a chance to become actual competition. Google has a history of it, and a lot of folks here naively think Meta will for some reason handle things more ethically.
Ok yea, fuck Meta and Facebook.
I think we should pressure public figures and governments to use non-threads profiles. That way if they pull the plug, there's a loss to their own platform.
It's owned by meta/facebook
It's just a mob-mentality.
Make your own decisions, which these people clearly don't want you to do.
Weird middle ground here. I kind of wish that 1 communities FROM threads were blocked, and 2 we had an active dev fund for ad blockers. I'm glad to have threads users come here and add to our communities personally.
Based, actually. People are welcome. Meta is not.
Right cause I think having both having access to normie content and giving normies access to fediverse content is a positive thing if we can balance out the power dynamic with meta. Blocking threads content would just defeat the purpose imo, it would prevent people from leaving threads for the fediverse because they wont be able to get the same content. If threads has it all and fediverse doesn't, most people are just going to go to/stay at threads. It could backfire.
Maybe if instances could allow meta users to see their posts to pique their interest/gain exposure, but meta users have to join any other instance in order to interact? Kind of like an ad I guess but UI native and unpaid. Though I'm really not sure if the fediverse platform would even support such things in the first place, and if meta couldn't just fire back with the same thing. It's just the first thing that comes to mind.
The fediverse's number one issues right now as I see it are accessibility and content density. I get the concerns people have with EEE but I also struggle not to see this as handling that last E (exterminate) ourselves just to spite meta. I want to join threads just to see what my friends and everyday people are posting, and I'd really like those people to join the fediverse so I can interact with them here. The only things keeping me away from threads however are privacy concerns and supporting meta, so being able to see the same content on a different instance might just be the best of both worlds.
How do I know if my insurance instance blocked threads
Call GEICO.
"hi, yes, Geico? Are Zuckerberg-defenders in my internet forums today? If so, I'd like to extend my anti-wanker policies"
There should be a phone number on the back of your card
Go to lemmy.world/instances and scroll down to "Blocked instances". If "threads.net" doesn't show up in that list then they haven't blocked them.
This metric seems kind of meaningless if it doesn't account for the size of the user base
It's about 24% of the userbase according to this comment: https://lemmy.world/comment/6148151
As I expected, it's mostly smaller instances, but it's not an insignificant amount. I wonder how much lemmy.world's decision affects these statistics.
FOSS bros: we’re all about user choice!
also FOSS bros: no not like that
We just don't want history repeating itself like what happened with xmpp. Do you really think facebook of all companies is joining the fediverse with good intentions? Do you really think they're not trying to monopolize this?
Last I checked, the people using XMPP are still running happily using servers and clients.
All 17 of them.
I gotta ask.. were you around and actively using xmpp around that time?
Because I was. And xmpp struggling had nothing to do with Google
You're downplaying your own part, in between those two statements.
Internet rando: "I choose to enable this corporate, repeat privacy offender in strongarming its way into the open, federated web"
Edit: spelling
Someone failed ethics class really hard.
This critique of "user choice means that every instance should try and be as open as possible and try and federate with as many compatible entities as possible, so that any user, from any instance, might find and interact with content from everywhere" is as valid for instances blocking Threads as it is for blocking instances for allowing hate speech and bot-boosted corporate ads.
Personally, I prefer those to be blocked and have "user choice" mean users choosing to participate and promote the instances they believe are more useful, because my "user choice" is "I don't want all kinds of bullshit to arrive unfiltered at my feed".
So many people here are acting like lions, jaguars, attack zebras etc don’t exist. There is no way on this earth that meta is coming into the fediverse with good intentions. Just because we advocate for FOSS doesn’t mean we have to be foolish and vulnerable. Being closed to meta is consistent with being supportive of FOSS, because make no mistake, meta is here to kill the fediverse.
Yeah, can't expect people in power not to use it to further their agenda.
relevant xkcd my friend ;) The fediverse is still open.
You just sounded like:
You don't allow nazi clubs in your area? Ah hah! Gotcha! So much for the "tolerant left"!
🙄
Seriously, why are there so many people ignorant of the damage Facebook has done not only to social media, but to democracy as a whole? You're aware of Facebooks role in Trump's election in 2016, aren't you? Haven't you heard of Cambridge Analytica? Of the Russian troll farms? Of the millions of fake Republican Facebook accounts?
(Sometimes I wonder: Is Lemmy getting filled with shills, or are people THAT clueless? Has the pandemic suddenly affected our long term memory or something?)
How can you not know about this? Seriously!
Percentage of instances is meaningless without knowing their representative size in the overall context of the fediverse.
Yeah what % of the population has blocked Threads, since World has opted to not pre-emptively defederate
Interesting thought; I believe the number of instances is more representative, for the sole reason that mastodon social (the "default" instance of Mastodon) is a huge instance with millions of accounts and is already blocked by pretty much every other instance due to awfully meager moderation. Oh, the irony.
Been enjoying Lemmy, so I wanted to see how Threads is. "It's just going to seem like another instance, right?"
It's Facebook with another skin. The posts are pretty much all the same sort of posts memes take the piss out of. Literally feels just like Facebook... Going to stick to Lemmy, myself.
Meta wants to kill the Fediverse from inside while it's not a big rival. That's the only reason Meta want's to "become friend" to the Fediverse. The same that GAFAM has been doing for decades (if you can't buy it, destroy it).
It's certainly possible that Meta has a plan to destroy the fediverse with Threads, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that they're just doing this because they can. If their plan was to take over the fediverse from within, and that plan hinged on instances not defederating out of caution, then it's off to a poor start. I might just be totally naive but this feels more like them testing the water by opening their doors to the fediverse - I don't know if they know what happens next.
It's probably to comply with the Digital Markets Act in the EU, which I believe requires services that act as gatekeepers to have some form of interoperability, more than anything really.
I'll buy there's no evil plan. But the outcome is the same: Meta destroys the Fediverse, willingly or not.
I interpreted this in the context of multi-threaded programs. Very confused why everyone was so happy.
Brilliant, all the propaganda about "join us, the fediverse is like email" gone to shit. More like "it's like email, but if you email ends with @hotmail.com we will block your messages".
I agree with the sentiment, not with these actions, instead of giving meta users a way to break free, we built a wall between us and them, who have way more content, because we're afraid of Zuck stealing our data, which is public and he already done.
It's really interesting to see the two sides of the coin. People are extremely passionate on both sides. I didn't think people on the side of "in favor of federating with Threads" were just as passionate.
It's not about stealing data, it's about not letting Zuck gain influence and control of the fediverse.
There would be little point being federated if instances couldn't choose how they set policies or moderate content. It doesn't stop an instance being 8kun if it wants but it doesn't mean the others have to accept that.
I think the problem is that users don't get to decide which instances they're federated this; admins do.
This means good luck finding an instance that federates with everything you want to see and blocks out everything you don't.
Horrible design oversight imo, but lots of people here seem to be in favor of others making decisions for them so I don't see it changing anytime soon.
In a monolithic system where this happens, your only choice as a user is to walk away entirely. e.g. in Twitter it used to have moderation against the worst people and now it doesn't and you can choose to stay or go. At least in a federated system if you don't like the server you're on you can find another and can even migrate your account to that other server.
Let's hit 90% 💪!
what does fedipact mean
It's a grassroots fedi movement aimed at blocking big Corporate social media networks (like Twitter and Facebook) from the fediverse.
oh thanks
Any instances who've promised not to block?
The official Mastodon instances will probably never block, due to Gargron's eagerness to federate with them.
Good to know. I like being able to decide for myself what I get to see.
Honestly, I expected something like 80%. But progress is progress.
Does Threads show up as an instance I can block?
I think every instance should be able to federate with whomever they wish, I just don't want to participate.
Yes, you can domain block threads.net just like any other mastodon/misskey/whatever server.
If you're an instance admin, yes.
If you mean that you personally just don't want, as a user, to see content from that instance, then no, but shortly. kbin has had the ability for users to block seeing content from particular instances for a while; lemmy has not, but I understand that it's in the next release.
Can I get a link to the EEE article that's been floating around? Trying to explain this to a friend and I'm too dumb/they do a good job
Yes thank you!
ELI5 federation on Lemmy
It uses a slightly different configuration than Mastodon but otherwise it behaves exactly the same. You can read and reply to Lemmy posts from Mastodon.
In the same way, you can block requests from certain servers (this is called defederating) so their users can't reply, follow or spam you.
So, I'm connected to a fancy computer called a server, and so are you, but we're connected to different servers. The reason we can still talk is that despite being on different servers run by different people, those people have made it so that the servers can share what I say with you, and what you say with me.
Federation is simply a fancy term for an agreement to share something. In this case, it's our text posts.
There are other kinds of federation, but that's not important to Lemmy. Since you asked specifically about Lemmy, I'll leave it at that.
You are on Lemmy.world. I am on Lemmy.ca. These are distinct websites but they use the same underlying service. Federating means that the two websites share their info - this let's us talk despite being on different websites.
You're on lemmy.world and I'm on programming.dev, but we can still see each others posts and interact with each other because lemmy.world and programming.dev are federated.
Well, you're commenting on a Mastodon post...
Where can we find out which of the larger instances blocked or did not block Threads?
You can use this: https://fedipact.veganism.social/?v=2
I'd like to join an instance that doesn't defederate from anything.
Perhaps we can have two separate fediverses going.
I wanted to recommend infosec.pub where I'm at, they have only defederated from extremist & cp crap. Overall not even 10, however lemmygrad is included (which I consider a blessing), that would probably be the only controversial one.
Already is happening
Kinda sucks because now you really have no control over who gets your data. No need to scrape pages or embed trackers when the fediverse just broadcasts your activity to anyone.
Even if your instance defederates from threads, doesn’t mean they defederated from yours, so anything you do is fair game for Meta’s data collection. That’s at least as I understand it.
Welcome to the internet? We've been here the whole time
Then why are you posting publicly on the internet? Anything you post here is fair game.
Also, Meta's data collection is from their own clients so they can target ads to you. This information is basically useless as you aren't on their platform so they cannot take sensitive data and cannot target ads at you
The point isn't to combat data collection.
Fediverse admins have had their first taste of power, and they're clinging to it like most corrupt people would.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Is there a way to block these threads about threads?
ELI5 what means "blocked threads" please
Threads is an US-American, text-focused social media platform from the Meta Group (Facebook).
Threads supports the ActivityPub protocol and thus can be integrated into the Fediverse, allowing data portability, follower portability, and interoperability with all social media platforms that also support it, including Mastodon.
Many Mastodon instances aren't happy with a company like Meta entering the Fediverse and thus block Threads servers.
"Threads" is a new website from Facebook that works like Twitter. Facebook is trying to connect Threads to Lemmy and Mastodon
I hope then that all instances of the Lemmyverse block Meta from putting its damn tentacles into our decentralized network.
The real question is how many instances will block the instances that don't block the instances that don't block Threads.
Good.
YEEEE
How many have blocked discourse ? Better to be safe than sorry.
And Flipboard! Gotta make sure the Fediverse's garden walls are impenetrable!
Yes Flipboard too. A reminder of why we must protect ourselves
I hope you guys are strongly against net neutrality.
The fediverse is not an ISP.
Browser is also not an ISP.
When will we defederate from these 58.99% ?
EDIT: And why is lemmy.world federated to threads? I thought we are more strict about this.
I'd recommend you create your instance and defederate from the 58.99%. Wouldn't miss you the slightest!
Q1: do you want an echo chamber? because that's how you get an echo chamber
Q2: idk
federate with gab
You can switch instances.
