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

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#41

Post by cmdli »

LexiMax wrote: post #36
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…

> People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong. It seems 100% reasonable to suspect the motives of a company with two massive walled-garden social networks under their belt. The fediverse doesn't need them, and there's no obvious upside of federation for them. Besides, on my list of issues with Facebook and Instagram, "not…

> The fediverse doesn't need them

I 100% disagree. If the goal of the fediverse is to generally decentralize social networks, then this sort of thing is exactly what the fediverse needs to do in order to reach more people. On the other hand, if the fediverse wants to be a niche community that only lets the "right" people in, then they should come out and say so, and stop recommending Mastodon as an alternative to FB/Twitter.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#42

Post by nobody9999 »

TrueDuality wrote: post #30
nobody9999 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 sh…

>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.

Ummm...Isn't that what TFA is all about? Blocking bad actor instances? Or are you asserting that "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 FB?" are the actions of a good citizen of the Fediverse?

I'd say those would be the actions of a profoundly bad actor who shouldn't be allowed to interact with my fediverse instance.

>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'm not sure why you don't think blocking would be workable. You can block hosts and entire IP ranges in admin UIs for AP instances, or you can just block all of Meta's AS'[0] at the network level. How is that unworkable?

>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.

I don't necessarily disagree, but given Meta's past disrespect for their product (that'd be you, by the way), it's not surprising that many folks don't want anything to do with them -- before or after they show their true colors.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%...

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#43

Post by drdaeman »

rcme wrote: post #4
web3-is-a-scam wrote: post #2

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

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

Adoption as in numbers to please some department or board (or even a lone server owner) probably isn't. Not in general.

Adoption as in getting more and more interesting people posting and talking? Probably yes, because if it's not then I suppose I don't get what the heck this could be all about.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#45

Post by zer0zzz »

treyd wrote: post #9
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?

Because we learned from this before with their support for XMPP in Messenger (which no longer exists)? And plenty of other examples for for-profit corporations initially embracing open standards/protocols that might threaten their moat?

XMPP as a product was growing and doing fine until it completely failed to operate in the model of modern smart phones that have to use push services to stay connected. This Reddit link has some good descriptions of the limitations: https://www.reddit.com/r/xmpp/comments/np8i2l/why_does_it_se....

In a world where mobile matters first and foremost xmpp just kinda died. And facebook wasn’t unique in this, google killed their s2s support around the time they transitioned to hangouts as well. Fact is facebook probably still runs one of the largest ejabberd instances (but I’m not certain what runs WhatsApp these days actually).

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#46

Post by Nextgrid »

LexiMax wrote: post #40
Nextgrid wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And this is exactly why the current idea of "fediverse" was not only dead on arrival but is just as dead 7 years down the (counting from Mastodon's release date which is the most popular implementation). People just want to communicate, they don't know nor care about the technical details. They know that if they ask the person they just met at the bar…

Yikes. I was half expecting you to end that last sentence with a contemptuous "NERRRRRRRRRDS!!!"

The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it.

Btw, I say this as a nerd & tech guy that hates ad-supported social media and wishes for a better alternative, but the current iteration "fediverse" is not it, for many different reasons besides branding which I've written about previously: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#47

Post by LexiMax »

cmdli wrote: post #41
LexiMax wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong. It seems 100% reasonable to suspect the motives of a company with two massive walled-garden social networks under their belt. The fediverse doesn't need them, and there's no obvious upside of federation for them. Besides, on my list of issues with Facebook and Instagram, "not…

> The fediverse doesn't need them I 100% disagree. If the goal of the fediverse is to generally decentralize social networks, then this sort of thing is exactly what the fediverse needs to do in order to reach more people. On the other hand, if the fediverse wants to be a niche community that only lets the "right" people in, then they should come out and say so, and stop recommending Mastodon as an alternative to FB/…

> On the other hand, if the fediverse wants to be a niche community that only lets the "right" people in, then they should come out and say so, and stop recommending Mastodon as an alternative to FB/Twitter.

Why? The only reason I use Mastodon is because it was recommended to me.

And you're right that Mastodon isn't an alternative to Facebook or Twitter. My timeline actually works correctly on the fediverse, I don't have obnoxious ads shoved in my face, and I can use a single app to easily use multiple accounts across multiple servers and straddle federation walls if I so choose.

Come to think of it, will Meta even allow outside clients on Threads? Or will they allow it initially and then stop supporting it later? One of the two is an almost-certainty.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#48

Post by LexiMax »

Nextgrid wrote: post #46
LexiMax wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes. I was half expecting you to end that last sentence with a contemptuous "NERRRRRRRRRDS!!!"

The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it. Btw, I say this as a nerd & tech guy that hates ad-supported social media and wishes for a better alternative, but the current iteration "fediverse" is not it, for many different reasons besides branding which I've written about previously: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=…

> The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it.

I don't think Mastodon even makes the top 25 of most cringeworthy social media parlance when "tweet" continues to be the reigning champion since 2006.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#49

Post by jeena »

LexiMax wrote: post #11

I don't really see what good can come from an entrenched social media company responsible for walled garden communities trying to enter the fediverse. The whole point of federation is to _avoid_ those single points of failure. Besides, if I wanted to see posts from Facebook or Instagram users, I know where to find them.

Exactly my thinking too. They could have their API like it was in the beginning where you could post things and read things and we could then create some translation layer for those people who really want to read their grandmas posts in their Mastodon app.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#50

Post by praisewhitey »

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…

>This 'ActivityPub' interoperability also happened with Gab, which became the largest Mastodon instance at one point and then almost all instances de-federated with it.

wasn't this Pawoo.net? I remember Gab switching to mastodon but they weren't really big, unlike Pawoo which was by far the biggest instance at one time.

Post reply on HN