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

Threads.net

threads.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 94 posts

Re: Threads.net

#51

Post by nobody9999 »

leonidasv wrote: post #12
fishpen0 wrote: post #8

Mastodon communities are already coordinating trying to fully defederate threads. This is definitely going to be interesting to watch as a big whale jumps into the fediverse with the intent to profit

That's why nobody takes the 'fediverse' seriously. Threads is not the first server being blocked because moderator x don't like the owner of that server. Imagine if signing up for a @gmail.com email meant that you can't send or receive emails from @outlook.com addresses because the owner is mad at Microsoft. They could have taken this as a big opportunity to make ActivityPub mainstream but nah, let's keep gatekeeping…

>They could have taken this as a big opportunity to make ActivityPub mainstream but nah, let's keep gatekeeping our bubbles. They're the only losing.

Just curious, what do you mean by "mainstream?" Did you really mean widespread adoption of ActivityPub (AP) or did you mean "one additional instance of an AP instance that has millions of users?"

Meta getting into the Fediverse doesn't do anything to make AP "mainstream," rather it exposes the existing users of the Fediverse to a single instance that has the users that many of those in the Fediverse setup/joined instances to get away from.

What's more, Meta's business model (hyping conflict and clickbait to drive engagement and ad revenue) is antithetical to many in the fediverse.

As such, it's not surprising that many admins don't want anything to do with them, as they've shown themselves to be bad actors on their own platform. And that's the main reason admins ban instances -- because they're (at least from the admin's point of view) bad actors.

It's almost enough to get me to federate my AP instances just so I can ban/block Meta. But I don't even want to federate with extant AP instances, so I won't bother.

Re: Threads.net

#52

Post by ncallaway »

dotnet00 wrote: post #29
fishpen0 wrote: post #8

Mastodon communities are already coordinating trying to fully defederate threads. This is definitely going to be interesting to watch as a big whale jumps into the fediverse with the intent to profit

The wider fediverse continues to demonstrate why most people prefer to stick to centralized social media. If I wanted to deal with moral busybodies who feel like they have to respond to everything, I'd just tune back into the political side of Reddit and Twitter. With the fediverse, the most likable servers I've interacted with all just let people do whatever they want as long as it isn't illegal and doesn't overload…

Isn’t the point of the fediverse that you can choose the servers that moderate the way you want?

And I can choose the ones that moderate the way I want?

Re: Threads.net

#53

Post by flangola7 »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #38
wenc wrote: post #11

For those not in the loop: Meta to launch Twitter-like Application Threads on Thursday. "Threads, Instagram's text-based conversation app, is expected to be released on Thursday and will allow users to follow the accounts they follow on the photo-sharing platform and keep the same username, a listing on Apple's App Store showed." https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2023-07-03/...

Oh great, so it's gonna be unusable for me anyways. Couple days ago tried to make my first Instagram account. When it came to the step where I had to enter the security code they mailed me I just got "sorry something went wrong" repeatedly for about an hour, then I gave up. Couple days later I tried again but used my own domain for email instead of gmail this time. Entering the code worked but I was immediately greet…

You're obviously going to need to give them a phone number. I'm surprised you were able you back an account at all without one.

Re: Threads.net

#54

Post by ncallaway »

leonidasv wrote: post #22
zzzeek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

folks are quite happy in the fediverse so I dont really see the "losing" here. if "losing" means not having to welcome an army of trolls taunting them as "loser gatekeepers" then lose away

The only way to stay away from trolls is running an instance at localhost without any networking. I thought social applications were meant to connect people.

I haven’t had an issue on mastodon with trolls yet. Seems like I’ve been able to connect with people, without really having to deal with trolls.

If that’s losing, then so be it. I’ll happily lose in a smaller community, with people I’d rather talk to.

Re: Threads.net

#56

Post by dotnet00 »

ncallaway wrote: post #52
dotnet00 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wider fediverse continues to demonstrate why most people prefer to stick to centralized social media. If I wanted to deal with moral busybodies who feel like they have to respond to everything, I'd just tune back into the political side of Reddit and Twitter. With the fediverse, the most likable servers I've interacted with all just let people do whatever they want as long as it isn't illegal and doesn't overload…

Isn’t the point of the fediverse that you can choose the servers that moderate the way you want? And I can choose the ones that moderate the way I want?

That can work for those of us who don't mind figuring all that stuff out, I too went through a few accounts to understand how everything worked before finally setting up my own server, but most people just want something they can rely on being relatively out of the way rather than switching accounts whenever they don't agree with moderation decisions.

Thus my emphasis on why most people would rather just deal with centralized social media than the fediverse. That way there isn't any additional research to do, you just make an account and tolerate the terrible moderation. No additional steps about worrying about if the specific server you're on is agreeable, no need to worry about self-hosting.

Eg none of my friends were interested in doing all that research, so the only way to get them into the fediverse was on my server. Now that they're there, they're able to use it however they want and just block for themselves whatever they personally don't want to see.

Of course servers have the option to do whatever they want, which is great, but that doesn't mean they can't be criticized.

Re: Threads.net

#57

Post by deathanatos »

sashank_1509 wrote: post #28
zmmmmm wrote: post #26

If you can't be bothered decoding the QR code: https://threads.net/download/redirect

seriously why put it behind a QR code, why not make it a clickable link. It's not just threads, I see this annoying design pattern everywhere and I cannot fathom why people are doing this

A QR code that was frustratingly difficult to decode. I think all the cutesy artsy-ness of it was not helping.

Re: Threads.net

#58

Post by deathanatos »

dado3212 wrote: post #33
sashank_1509 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seriously why put it behind a QR code, why not make it a clickable link. It's not just threads, I see this annoying design pattern everywhere and I cannot fathom why people are doing this

So you have to go get out your phone to scan it, at which point, "Hey, I already have my phone out, might as well download the app!". On a mobile browser it just has a "Get the app" button.

…except I (apparently) can't, for (apparently) 2 days an change.

Re: Threads.net

#59

Post by throwawaymobule »

vitorgrs wrote: post #41
iforgotpassword wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh great, so it's gonna be unusable for me anyways. Couple days ago tried to make my first Instagram account. When it came to the step where I had to enter the security code they mailed me I just got "sorry something went wrong" repeatedly for about an hour, then I gave up. Couple days later I tried again but used my own domain for email instead of gmail this time. Entering the code worked but I was immediately greet…

Just tried to create an account right now and had the same issue, they though it was a spam account... how is that so restrictive and yet Instagram is full of bots?

If you're willing to give and verify phone numbers, scans of government IDs, and other personal data, it's pretty easy to get your account unbanned. (assuming it works like facebook)

An impasse if you care about privacy, but less so if all you care about is staying on the site.

Post reply on HN