Why was this flagged?
Because apparently there is a non-zero population of Facebook-apologists on HN.
FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain
61–69 of 69 posts
Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain
#62When 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.
Actually, that’s rather par for the course for a federated network. Don’t like it? Make your own fediverse node. That’s literally the entire point.
Wow so it’s both awful to use and separated into fragmented bubbles. What a great product.
Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because their motives are suspect?
Their motives are probably compliance with the interoperability provisions of the European Union’s upcoming Digital Markets Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/eu-digital-markets-act... Since that’s a legal requirement, it’s not something they can yank in the future.
Thanks, I didn't understood before why they would want to add this (other some thumbs ups from a hostile tech community). But wouldn't such protocols be needed for all products operating there, not just new ones?
Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain
#64Just give all of them a finger. Don't allow anyone to commercially profit from your content without your consent.
Using Nginx to block Meta, Twitter and ChatGPT access to your sites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36476243
Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their motives are probably compliance with the interoperability provisions of the European Union’s upcoming Digital Markets Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/eu-digital-markets-act... Since that’s a legal requirement, it’s not something they can yank in the future.
Thanks, I didn't understood before why they would want to add this (other some thumbs ups from a hostile tech community). But wouldn't such protocols be needed for all products operating there, not just new ones?
It’s easier to add this to a new service where product management started after the contours of the DMA became clear. Picking something off the shell like ActivityPub was probably easier than inventing a new one. I am more knowledgeable about RSS than ActivityPub, so that’s just a guess.
Also a Twitter clone where everything is public is easier than something like Facebook with complex privacy and sharing settings.
Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Think about a physical community, perhaps the area where you live. Do you really want the population of your neighborhood to 10x? Population size changes the characteristics of a place. Sometimes, you’re content with the way things are.
Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain
#67When 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.
Actually, that’s rather par for the course for a federated network. Don’t like it? Make your own fediverse node. That’s literally the entire point.
It is par for the course, and it is also the thing that'll keep federated networks from succeeding.
Look, I don't like or trust Facebook. But how many customers would Fastmail have if they defederated from Gmail? For that matter, how much would Gmail have grown if they had decided not to federate with Hotmail and Yahoo? If people can't use your service to talk to or follow friends & family on other services, they'll just use the services their friends & family use. Sure, they could use both, but why bother? The one that isn't huge has little or nothing to offer them.
I'm all for letting users of federated networks set up their own personal blocks of users, nodes, entire services, whatever. But when admins defederate, it blocks all good communication, too. And turns the federated network into an unfederated non-network.
> Don’t like it? Make your own fediverse node.
Sure. And when you do set up your own fediverse node with the intent of actually staying federated, you will quickly find yourself with a de-fediverse node, as admins punish you for daring to let your computer talk to the computer of someone they don't like.
Edit: To be more clear, I am NOT saying that fediverse nodes want or need to be huge like Gmail or Facebook. I'm saying that convincing people to escape the walled garden into the fediverse is mostly not gonna be possible without a demonstrated commitment to keeping the network connected. It'd be like trying to convince someone to set up their own email server, when nobody they know will ever see their emails because Gmail dumps it all into the spam bucket. What Gmail has done to the idea of a personal email server, the fediverse is doing to itself, self-inflicted.
Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain
#68Yeah, 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.
But your argument, as we've seen, only means resetting the enshittiffication clock.
The next level tech would prevent the type of preferential monopoly.
Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Think about a physical community, perhaps the area where you live. Do you really want the population of your neighborhood to 10x? Population size changes the characteristics of a place. Sometimes, you’re content with the way things are.
If not for the physical space constraints (crowded streets) - I suppose I do. More folks around means more opportunities, more diversity. Even if I won't interact with 99.9% of them, why would I be against a possibility that they'll bring something more I might like to the table? I mean, unlike in physical world, no one can shove anything up my face unless I'm specifically in a mood to see what else is out there.
The beauty of distributed digital landscapes (as opposed to corporate-ran walled gardens) is that you're in more control of how it works and what you see. When there's no central hub, there is no land to fight for - I don't have to see the giant concrete anthills of dense cities, the space I see is configured to my preferences. And of course I would like to have more options of what to read and whom to talk to, than less. Even though I'm unlikely to consume any of this Instagram content (it's just not my thing).
So, I don't quite get this "barbarians at the gate!" thing. But then I don't get the idea of Fediverse servers as some sort of communities either - to me having a shared server is just an unfortunate consequence of technical limitations making it's highly impractical a true distributed system. I really don't want to care what server something or someone is on.