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

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: Threads.net

#81

Post by KSPAtlas »

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…

Have you ever heard of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?

Re: Threads.net

#82

Post by rsynnott »

e63f67dd-065b wrote: post #14
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

My prediction is that this will be even less effective than the reddit blackout protests at actually accomplishing anything. It'll just make people feel like they're sticking it to the man without actually doing anything.

Well, depending on how well-moderated the Facebook thing turns out to be (I would not be particularly optimistic, though you never know) you avoid subjecting your users to all sorts of unpleasantness.

I'm keeping an open mind, for now (though I'm pessimistic, because, well, it's Facebook, and Facebook are _bad_ at this), but I may end up moving instance over this (either direction; maybe threads is a net benefit but my instance defederates, maybe it's bloody awful but my instance doesn't).

I actually see this as an upside of the federated approach; I get to choose whether I want exposure to this.

Re: Threads.net

#83

Post by rsynnott »

gbraad wrote: post #25
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

Which makes no sense. They wanted Google to federate. They still want Apple to open messages (xmpp)... And this? Block it before we see it.

(a) It's not necessarily the same 'they'.

(b) The mechanics of XMPP vs ActivityPub (ie point to point messages vs social media stuff) are very different.

(c) It's Facebook, and a lot of people really, really, _really_ don't trust Facebook, particularly on the privacy side. I think if this was, say, Tumblr/Automattic, or even Google bringing Buzz back from the dead, the knee-jerk reaction would be lesser, even if the potential _problems_ would be similar; Facebook just has a horribly compromised reputation (note that they _renamed_ themselves, which is not generally what you do when you have a well-regarded brand).

Re: Threads.net

#84

Post by rsynnott »

wilg wrote: post #7

Imagine how down on Facebook making a Twitter clone everyone would be if it weren't for Mr. E.R. Musk.

I mean, that would be a completely different situation. The only reason it makes any sense for Facebook to even try this is that Twitter has spent the last nine months or so repeatedly shooting itself in the foot. As it is, there's a vacuum. Particularly this week; really remarkable timing on their side.

Now, it's Facebook, so I don't have particularly high hopes for it being any good. But they really were handed a remarkable opportunity by Twitter's... recent decisions.

Re: Threads.net

#86

Post by cowsup »

throwawaymobule wrote: post #59
vitorgrs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps by design. If you care too much about how much information you share, then Instagram / Meta aren’t interested in having you on their platform.

Re: Threads.net

#87

Post by gbraad »

rsynnott wrote: post #83
gbraad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which makes no sense. They wanted Google to federate. They still want Apple to open messages (xmpp)... And this? Block it before we see it.

(a) It's not necessarily the same 'they'. (b) The mechanics of XMPP vs ActivityPub (ie point to point messages vs social media stuff) are very different. (c) It's Facebook, and a lot of people really, really, _really_ don't trust Facebook, particularly on the privacy side. I think if this was, say, Tumblr/Automattic, or even Google bringing Buzz back from the dead, the knee-jerk reaction would be lesser, even if the…

It is social media. The information is in the open already. If you are concerned, don't post on a public site.

The concerns were about them seeing your messages. Well, they can scrape or use RSS anyway to get your info. Threads isn't eveb needed for this.

Re: Threads.net

#88

Post by rsynnott »

gbraad wrote: post #87
rsynnott wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(a) It's not necessarily the same 'they'. (b) The mechanics of XMPP vs ActivityPub (ie point to point messages vs social media stuff) are very different. (c) It's Facebook, and a lot of people really, really, _really_ don't trust Facebook, particularly on the privacy side. I think if this was, say, Tumblr/Automattic, or even Google bringing Buzz back from the dead, the knee-jerk reaction would be lesser, even if the…

It is social media. The information is in the open already. If you are concerned, don't post on a public site. The concerns were about them seeing your messages. Well, they can scrape or use RSS anyway to get your info. Threads isn't eveb needed for this.

I'm not saying the extra level of concern RE Facebook is _rational_, in this instance, just that it's _there_, and that it shouldn't be surprising it's there, based on Facebook's prior record.

Re: Threads.net

#89

Post by gbraad »

rsynnott wrote: post #88
gbraad wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is social media. The information is in the open already. If you are concerned, don't post on a public site. The concerns were about them seeing your messages. Well, they can scrape or use RSS anyway to get your info. Threads isn't eveb needed for this.

I'm not saying the extra level of concern RE Facebook is _rational_, in this instance, just that it's _there_, and that it shouldn't be surprising it's there, based on Facebook's prior record.

I am very positive about that.

Thr name change didn't do much. They are still colloquially known as Facebook. And meta also this bad vibe because of the failed metaverse.

It is smart they choose IG to use for this. It has a different user base. More around communities and interests, and less toxic?

Re: Threads.net

#90

Post by unshavedyak »

dotnet00 wrote: post #56
ncallaway wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ce…

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

It's just that to a lot of us, that isn't a thing that makes much sense to be criticized. Like complaining that there's no lovely exhaust smell from an electric car.

To a lot of us it not being a massive central server that is instantly viable for everyone on the planet is the good thing.

Many of us don't want everyone on the Fedi. We want people interested in the premise of what the Fedi gives. Which inherently is tied to being okay with uninterested people not joining.

I've been on Mastodon for ~8 months (or w/e). Back in November, all the people claiming it was just a fad, that it would never exceed Twitter, were doom saying all through Jan/etc when the flood didn't cripple Mastodon. Yet there i and everyone i knew on it was, just using it.

The only interesting/concerning thing here is just having Facebook on ActivityPub.

Post reply on HN