I stopped reading the article as soon as it criticised LibsOfTikTok, arguably one of the best and funniest social media accounts.
Same - when they start comparing accounts like that to Nazis, I know the article is trash.
Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
411–420 of 458 posts
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because people who create decentralized networks usually also subscribe to the concept of free flowing information, hence the decentralized network. One is their issues with a centralized service is control. Their issue with copyrighted material is control. Of course not everyone holds the same beliefs
Hey well put! Your answer is both more succinct and better than mine :)
I'm such a negative person I can't tell if you are being sarcastic
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social media networks with over 100,000,000 daily active users should not be considered as "private companies Your solution to private companies not broadcasting what you want is for the government to take the companies over and then dictate what they broadcast? Then what? Anything goes? There are plenty of sites that show you what happens when there is no form of moderation at all and they turn into complete cesspoo…
> There are plenty of sites that show you what happens when there is no form of moderation at all and they turn into complete cesspools. Well, that's precisely because there's only a few of them. If the only site with free speech is some obscure forum, then all people with extremist opinions are going to concentrate there. If all popular social networks have free speech, extremist content is going to be diluted in no…
What are you basing that on? The word extremist is there for a reason, people spam and try to overwhelm any site without some bare minimum of moderation. Even sites that say they are going to be all about "free speech" end up immediately having to come up with a plan to weed out all sorts of horrible stuff. Voat, 4chan, 8chan, parler, zero hedge, slashdot with the filter score on minimum... How many examples do you need that are the opposite of your prediction.
Extremists don't want discussion, they want to blast something outrageous to as many people as possible, it is directly opposed to what you think will happen.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
ActivityPub is doing fine, but the more people who are using it, the better. We saw this with the most recent migration from Twitter to Mastodon about 6 months ago. We got more users, and that brought more developers, bug fixes, enhancements, and new ActivityPub projects.
>ActivityPub is doing fine, but the more people who are using it, the better. We saw this with the most recent migration from Twitter to Mastodon about 6 months ago. We got more users, and that brought more developers, bug fixes, enhancements, and new ActivityPub projects. You won't get any argument about that from me. That said, what's needed is more instances, not a single instance with a hundred million users. Wha…
Yeah, I wouldn’t count on Meta contributing directly. I guess what I mean is, out of those 100M users, some will be programmers who get jazzed about ActivityPub after using Threads, and they’ll start up hobby projects or contribute to existing projects like Mastodon or Pixelfed.
I’m 100% with you that more diversity is needed, but if Threads actually federates, I’m optimistic that it will help feed the broader ecosystem.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a potential difference here is that a substantial part of the existing Fediverse won't care if we break compatibility with Threads. Many will actively welcome it, so there's potentially less pressure to yield if the make changes people don't like.
The Mastodon corner of the fediverse is also ridiculously more well run and diverse than xmpp outside the big players ever was. Like, when threads joins it's far far more likely to be a net contributor of spam and abuse towards the rest of the network because the people who run Mastodon instances generally actually care. Even Mastodon.social (the biggest instance currently) routinely gets silenced or blocked temporar…
A lot of servers have preemptively blocked Meta.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Defederating from Meta as a solution is stupid One question I've had for fediverse people is how you prevent a federated system from centralizing. I am legitimately curious. Email is often given as an example, but imo that a perfect example of a decentralized system BECOMING centralized. Sure, other players exist but the vast majority of people are on gmail, apple, or outlook (which is much smaller than the other t…
> the vast majority of people are on gmail, apple, or outlook What do apple email addresses look like? I genuinely don't know anybody that uses an address that says to me "provided by Apple"... I do know a lot of people that use their corporate/organisational addresses for personal email though, which always surprised me. Edit: just read that "me.com" email addresses are apple-provided - I have at least seen them use…
just to muddy the waters a bit, I recently moved my personal domain to use iCloud as the mail provider, so you wouldn't see @me.com/@iCloud.com, but just my domain.
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#417Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Liberals never actually left the free speech refuge - they just wanted to keep the far right out of it. There's a logic to this; you don't want people advocating for mass censorship to be able to use free speech as a weapon to cut your head off. The political censorship on current social media goes far beyond “we don't want people advocating for mass censorship here”. Ironically, they do like advocating for mass ce…
If you mean Twitter specifically they jumped from "we have a bunch of rules that accidentally censor right-wingers more because they break the rules more" to "we intentionally censor left-wingers for the sake of balance" the moment Musk jumped in. I'm not entirely sure how that refutes my point, though - the liberals the grandparent post was talking about aren't the same class of people who actually have moderation p…
> we have a bunch of rules that accidentally censor right-wingers more because they break the rules more
“Accidentally”? When people got banned for hating on black people, but hating on white people was fine, for example?
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#419If you have personal information you do not wish bad actors to see, do not publish it using an open protocol explicitly designed to allow anyone to read said information. Defederating from Meta as a solution is stupid - Meta can (and will if they actually care enough) just rejoin undercover. Furthermore, when it comes to the fediverse, Meta is actually one of the more trusted actors compared to whatever else is on th…
There's a few different concerns, one concern is about the reach of your posts changing dramatically, and meta handing your content to people who will then harass you, share your posts into their network multiplying the effect, etc (a common experience for trans people on some networks). Like, these people could've found your posts but they have no reason to search for you explicitly. L
Re: Blocking Threads won't be enough to protect privacy once they join the Fediverse
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true, but it's also a "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't" argument. Which is not to say it's invalid, of course, but it's not a strong argument. Personally, while I certainly don't trust a random stranger, I trust Facebook even less. Not that any of this matters, really. My opinion affects nothing.
Trust is more nuanced more than that though. I trust my grandma to make a good cake, but I do not trust my dad to do the same. But I trust my dad to be there when I call him, whereas I wouldn't of my grandma. And that level of trust nuance comes from a long track record. To me, there is no other source of trust.
I agree entirely!
And the long track record I see of Facebook tells me that I can trust them to abuse people any time they can make a dime doing so. They have no benefit of the doubt, because there is no doubt.
A stranger might also abuse people any chance they get, but there is also a chance that they're better than that.