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.
@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?
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.
@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.
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.
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.
I’m pretty sure most people don’t want it to…
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.
@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?
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.
@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
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.
@david_megginson @sab — so… thugs have Truth Social, X, and Threads. How are they seeping into a Mastodon?
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.
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.
@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
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.