Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

mastodon.moule.world

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#21

Post by LexiMax »

cyanydeez wrote: post #3

Yeah, f your tech is meant to "federate" the internet, being a block on the larger old guard isn't the way to go, unless your tech really ain't much.

If the end state of the fediverse is the same incumbent social networks running the federated social media sphere just like they run their walled gardens, what would've been the point of the entire exercise?

Meta already has their social networks. The fediverse doesn't need them, and I don't see why they "need" the fediverse either - unless their plan is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#22

Post by MBCook »

We’re open to everyone!

No not like that!

A person going by Bloonface (https://mastodon.social/@Bloonface/110605013435138542#.) put it perfectly. People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong.

Posting too much. Using hashtags. Not using hashtags. Not adding alt descriptions. Not using content warnings. Using content warnings. Using them, but for the wrong thing. Joining the big servers. Joining the bad servers. Talking about Twitter. Not calling it ‘the bird site’. Not being pro-(whatever) enough. Demanding people do any of the above.

A number of people I like went to Mastodon, I enjoy I can keep reading their stuff. And I get the problems with Bluesky. But boy do I wish I had an invite, it sounds so much less contentious and more fun.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#23

Post by SamWhited »

cpill wrote: post #10
rcme wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe adoption isn’t the goal. Just a thought…

of course it is.

It's not. In so far as you can assign a "goal" to a network as diverse as the fediverse, many services (maybe most?) started out as a way to specifically get away from the growth mindset of giant corporations. The fediverse was initially popularized among the queer and trans communities as a way to remain safe from giant platforms that do a bad job moderating where they would be harassed all day. These are the people who made the fediverse what it is, and they could not have done the same on a giant billion-user platform like Facebook. Somewhere smaller and more intimate is easier to moderate, and keeps people safer. The point isn't rapid growth, or adoption, it's organic growth that doesn't outpace our ability to keep our users safe.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#25

Post by juped »

egypturnash wrote: post #20
dleslie wrote: post #6

Ah yes, let's punish and ostracize one of the largest silos for their attempts to be open to federation. Why, exactly?

Facebook has already embraced, extended, and extinguished RSS. The expectation is that they will do the same with ActivityPub if given a chance. They are also well-known for tracking users across the entire internet and maintaining "shadow profiles" of people who don't even use their services. Anyone with privacy concerns[1] would not want them on the same network as themselves. Their moderation is shit, they are hap…

no they haven't, what the hell are you talking about

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#26

Post by SamWhited »

rvz wrote: post #12

Fediverse: We want adoption in the Fediverse. Meta: Sure. Let's get 2B into the Fediverse with Instagram Threads. Fediverse: No! Not that sort of adoption! Block Meta from the Fediverse now! As expected and predicted in [0]: 'Instagram's success on ActivityPub is also Mastodon's nightmare and it tends to more centralization.' Looks like Threads is going to be the biggest Mastodon-compatible network on the Fediverse a…

You're right, we don't want that sort of adoption! We want slow, paced, organic growth. Users should join the fediverse because they want to be there, not because a giant corporation cut their accounts over to a new service that supports some random thing they've never heard of and don't understand. The culture clash that will result from Facebooks decision could be devastating, so naturally people are pushing back against that kind of adoption.

> with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do

I don't think this is true. The fediverse started out as a way to specifically have small services where users (mostly trans and queer users early on) wouldn't be harassed all day. "Irrelevant" only makes sense if you're thinking from the perspective of "get as many users as possible", but the fediverse isn't really about that. Small servers of marginalized people talking in private spaces where no one is harassing them is still extremely relevant.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#27

Post by jacooper »

MBCook wrote: post #22

We’re open to everyone! No not like that! A person going by Bloonface ( https://mastodon.social/@Bloonface/110605013435138542# .) put it perfectly. People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong. Posting too much. Using hashtags. Not using hashtags. Not adding alt descriptions. Not using content warnings. Using content warnin…

They are trying to protect the fediverse from Facebook Embrace, extend, extinguish them.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#28

Post by zer0zzz »

When admins decide to outright block entire domains based on some contrived bias with no input from users (ie user setting to block meta or whatever fediblock says) that pretty much kills the utility and purpose for having a federated network.

This is like if some mail host decided to block all mail from gmail domains.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#30

Post by TrueDuality »

nobody9999 wrote: post #14
web3-is-a-scam wrote: post #2

Blocking one of the biggest on-ramps will surely work wonders for adoption.

>Blocking one of the biggest on-ramps will surely work wonders for adoption. I'm not clear on what, exactly, Meta's AP offering might be (is it a separate user base from their other products, or an integration into them?) or how it will interact with other fediverse instances (FB/Insta users can follow users in the Fediverse without Meta enabling the reverse?). If, on the other hand, there's full, two-way federation…

Just a guess but I think they're going to do a full two-way federation with injected ad content. This could be very sneaky in how it works with the existing fediverse protocols. You really only have the power to block an instance or a user. What if each ad has its own user ID and is returned inline with any remote query for content? What if they take it a step further and inject ads using desired user's own IDs to show them when you follow your grandmother's content who would be very difficult to move off of FB?

As a fediverse host you can probably make custom spam like filters, and I'm sure there will be some distributed tools to fight this kind of thing... But right now a lot of the fediverse is assuming that moderation of external hosts is pretty straight forward and not actively adversarial. If you disagree with the policies or the populace that is attracted to a particular instance block the instance. That doesn't work with something at this scale.

I don't agree with instances proactively blocking Meta before they've shown their true colors, but I also don't think they're wrong. I just think we should let the monsters take off their mask and allow the social consequences to come when the blocks happen for a good reason.

Post reply on HN