this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
1287 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59693 readers
2814 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Obviously not, but the behavior already shows that Meta/Threads isn’t interested in being a good fediverse citizen, and in doing so lends more credibility to the idea that they’re aiming to embrace, extend, and extinguish.
I'm sorry but the fediverse is full of instances that block other instances. Blocking an instance is not bad behaviour on the fediverse.
If you don't like Threads, don't use it (I'm not using it), and if you want to use an instance that blocks Threads... you're welcome to do that.
But what I don't get is the idea that threads is somehow trying to kill the fediverse. All of the evidence is to the contrary. Meta wants to exist in a federated world. That doesn't mean they will allow access to all content on their corner of the fediverse, nobody wants that. All instances block some other instances and threads has every right to make their own choice about who to block.
Honey blocking all mentions of Pixelfed is not at all like blocking one instance, it is blocking the entire platform. It would be the same as blocking all mentions of Lemmy or all mentions of Mastodon, which would not block ONE instance, but ALL INSTANCES.
Meta can only do that on threads though. I don't care, that's really not my business.
Other people care, I certainly don't care if you care or not doe and I didn't ask for that spontaneous bit of information. You don't care? Uh, ok... I guess.
You're missing the point. I don't want you to understand my feelings, I want someone to explain to me what the big deal is. How meta "moderates" their platform has no effect on me, a non-threads user. What is my stake in it?
I'll copy and paste my reply to someone else here:
Any huge server that is impossible to moderate for admins is detrimental to the network and failure to properly moderate is the number one reason we should be looking at to defederate from instances.
Automatic "spam" protection is the exact thing which co-opted e-mail. Big corps with the largest e-mail user base use algorithms that automatically assume the worst about any small e-mail server. If you spin up a small server you are assumed to be spam unless unless unless, which ended up with e-mail being centralized in the hands of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple, despite being theoretically decentralized too.
Is that what we want for the Fediverse? 4 or 5 huge instances automatically defederating from all small instances unless they fit some criteria defined by the big corps, which they can change anytime?
To summarize, how big Threads is and how they decide to moderate the content matters for anyone who doesn't want the Fedi to end up like e-mail.
👆 this
I think it is (or should be) an antitrust issue to scrub all links to a competitor (Pixelfed vs Instagram) from your platform.
I can still find out about Bing from Google or vice versa. People would legitimately be upset if this were not so. I can still use Edge to download Firefox. People would legitimately be upset if this were not so. Etc etc etc.