Lemmy.ml has now blocked Threads.net
(Apparently) Unpopular Opinion: I think defederating Threads is the wrong move, because it just locks people into Threads. If people on Twitter had the ability to move to Mastodon AND still interact with all the people they did before, I think we would have seen even more people move. The only reason I still check twitter at all is because I have a few close friends who didn’t move. Meta is likely going to have big adoption of people who aren’t ready to go to Mastodon, but are interested in getting out of the dumpster-on-fire that twitter seems to continue to be. But blocking those people from being able to join the more popular Lemmy instances, given no actual policy violations, just will keep people in Meta that otherwise could leave. With the “however” being: It’s not quite clear to me that Threads users will be interacting with Lemmy as much Mastodon, if Threads were a Reddit replacement, it’s more directly connected.
The problem isn’t with the user base. It’s with Meta and their business practices. People very simply do not trust Meta or Facebook and with good reason.
Threads got 80 million users in 48h. Those people are not gonna use Mastodon anyway. They don’t care about their privacy, they don’t care that some proprietary algorithm is gonna decide what they will see, they don’t care that it’s Facebook. Those people have no standards. The only way we can help them is by educating them and if that doesn’t change their mind, then there is nothing we can do, because freedom and privacy is not something they value. People who value them are capable of making a small sacrifice of not using some website when an alternative exists.
Facebook either just wants to use the Fediverse for their own benefit or they want to destroy it before it becomes a bigger competitor. We shouldn’t risk all that we have built just because we live in an ignorant society that doesn’t understand technology.
Just because they won’t use Mastodon now, doesn’t mean they never will in the future. Especially when (not if) Mastodon sorts out some of their usability issues around signup and interacting with posts from other instances.
It would be nice to give them the option.
We need to build a strong society that isn’t dependent on big corporations for being able to do the most basic things like talking to each other. The usability issues seem like a tiny price to pay for that and for privacy and freedom of speech. Those people can join Mastodon any time if they wish. But if Facebook manages to destroy the Fediverse, there will be no freedom for anyone.
It’s not just about having the biggest reach, though.
I’ve noticed that some of the folks who are generally against defederating, whether it be between independent fediverse instances or from large companies, seem to have this impression that fediverse needs to take a huge chunk of some market share in order to compete. But the whole point of the Fediverse is that it doesn’t need to compete.
It’s not a company looking to increase their size, following a bottom line, and trying to increase profitability. It’s a network of people who communicate and share content. There’s no need to compete with anyone in order to accomplish that. We’re doing it right now regardless of whatever else exists out there.
We’ve gotten so used to this model where there are only a few really culturally relevant social media sites, but that’s literally because we’ve just bought into the business model of these companies as societies. Slashdot has been going strong since 1997. Is it the biggest forum or news site on the internet? No. It gets a tiny portion of the internet’s traffic. But that’s plenty to be what it is!
The fediverse is not facebook or twitter or reddit, and it shouldn’t be. We don’t want or need it to be.
I heard someone make the point recently that nobody walks into a nice, small restaurant and says they wish they were at McDonalds. Facebook is the McDonaldsification of the internet. Let’s be a bunch of small mom and pop restaurants instead.
Fully agree. It would be like saying people with @gmail addresses can’t email people on @someFederated.com email addresses. Also I think (and correct me if I’m wrong here) the idea of “defederating” gives power to some in a way we hated reddit admins having power. Suddenly it’s “totally the fediverse except when…”.
Imo fuck that. If I don’t like threads I won’t use threads the same way if I don’t like lemmy.someinstance I won’t interact with lemmy.someinstance. leave it open and let the users choose. But also let’s educate. Some will listen and some will roll their eyes. But it’s a choice.
Being the “Ban Happy” socal media is a bad thing and an even worse reputation.
I debate if its a good thing to let FB just have free content with asterisks as I have no idea whitch way the cup of users will spill
EDIT: FB is a parisite that has a small enugh heart to use agressive tactics like Embrace Extend Extinguish, be careful if we do let them in and always be ready to shut that door)
Another thing, lemmy.ml, reddit, twitter, (tiktok for good mesure) as well as Facebook and sons (and likely more) have sensorius admins, moderating above what most users want and warping conversations to pretend like “this is what people are saying online and nothing more nor less”. To be overly flippant: “lol problem child blocked other problem child”
either way, do what you think is right,
I understand your viewpoint but you have to realize meta/Facebook has done this before. The best solution to protect Lemmy/mastodon in the long run is to cut the cancer out before it has a chance dm to spread.
When you cut off a cancer, it dies. When you defederate a social network orders of magnitude larger and more powerful than you… it doesn’t even notice and continues to thrive.
This isn’t going to harm Threads or protect Lemmy.ml.
No, there are conciquences, we are at a point where its hard to see them
We take a risk no matter what we do, when we pull that plug both FB and us loose control of eachother,
FB will likely try to Embrace Extend Extinguish
We really shoud try to get along until they go evil. but…
at the same time we do somthing with our end of the link (3E method but without coersion like they will) or we die.
OR we cut them off
we sever the link and both sides lose power, Huge company with propaganda factories vs Good will and word of mouth alone,
FB could also force federate by webscraping (likely read only)
I agree with you on all of that, though I have a feeling that it’s overly idealistic and optimistic
If they add user-level defed, I’d be pretty on board with defederation being used for stuff like bot farms.
As it stands, with the current lack of user-level defed-- defederating is a server/user-whitelist, server-blacklist function.
Ideally I think it should be a server/user-whitelist, user-blacklist function, where a server-blacklist is reserved for botfarms/illegal content.
more ideally would be as many levels of granular control as possable for users and their clients.
However Servers ghould get
- whitelist/blacklist of users
- blacklist/whitelist of communities (prevents blocking servers for just their groups)
- blacklist/whitelist of servers
- server federation
The point is to blacklist as specific as needed, EX: dont block lemmy dot Marxist Lennonists just its extremist communities (ml admins have a communism chinaphile problem)
perspective: if i can still reach everyone on the fediverse with threads… why should i switch to lemmy and co? there is no incentive for it. so 99% will not do it if they don’t have to or get a incentive from it.we don’t get something from it, but facebook does (userdata and money).
so its a one sided deal where only facebook wins and we lose in the end.
Since writing my comment above, I’ve come across Cory Doctrow’s “Let the Platforms Burn” article where he argues that interoperability and the ability for users to move to other platforms is the best way out of the Meta situation. https://doctorow.medium.com/let-the-platforms-burn-6fb3e6c0d980
