Fedi Garden to users: "You may need to find an alternative to us"
Fedi Garden to Instance Admins: "Block Threads to Remain Listed"
Submitted 1 month ago by hedge@beehaw.org to technology@beehaw.org
https://wedistribute.org/2024/03/block-threads-to-remain-listed/
Comments
HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 month ago
retronautickz@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Well, it’s a list of "well maintained/moderated servers
Any server that federates with threads, a product of Meta a company known for their low quality moderation and lack of ethics, is clearly not a well maintained/moderated one.
It’s not a new rule. The admin is just applying the sites rules as they are, instead of making exception for threads as many of the techbro admins that are getting their servers excluded have been doing.
mister_monster@monero.town 1 month ago
This is proof to me that the federated model has failed. I was so hopeful early on in the fediverse, I thought it was all we needed. I no longer feel that way. It’s not a network of users, its a network of power tripping fiefdoms.
Client relay network topology is the future of social networking. Check out Nostr (and ignore all the bitcoiners, see the network for what it is).
jkrtn@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
All of humanity is a network of power-tripping fiefdoms.
jarfil@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Hi there, @monero.town…!
Nostr has a different functionality and works for a specific threat model that most people on Lemmy don’t care about.
Also, you can’t ignore the crypto part when talking about NOSTR: tokeninsight.com/en/coins/…/markets
millie@beehaw.org 1 month ago
The problem you’re having is that you’re addicted to being a consumer. The fediverse doesn’t hand consumers a golden key to have everything they want for free at no effort. It hands creators and organizers the tools to do what they want.
You were never the target audience for federation if you can’t be bothered to set up your own instance.
jarfil@beehaw.org 1 month ago
[Beware that you’re likely responding to a crypto shill.]
The Fediverse is not the problem, the “All” feed is the problem… and large non-thematic instances shoving boosts from anyone that at least one of their users follows, straight to “All”, is a problem.
Another problem, is setting up your own instance and being legally responsible for distributing what some users, that your users decide to follow, decide to boost.
HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 month ago
You realise you sound really like Spez
flumph@programming.dev 1 month ago
“I don’t think it’s nice to federate with a company that has been cited in multiple independent reports of massacres/genocides,”
And I don’t think it’s nice to take the choice away from users. I can block threads all on my own – I don’t need a nanny who doesn’t even cite their sources.
eveninghere@beehaw.org 1 month ago
The rules for being listed on fedi.garden will require blocking instances cited in human rights reports on genocide.
And this is their announcement on this oddly specific rule.
I mean, the wording “cited in multiple reports of massacres or genocides” is strange enough. An organization can be “cited” for doing anything. Can I write up two reports to ban lemmy.ml?
Fediverse should be based on a mature protocol imo.
danie10@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
I agree 100%. I don’t need someone else overriding my existing right to decide whether I want to block or not (where is that going to stop). Anyway, I connect and follow individuals, not their whole instance. I’m not going to see anything from Threads unless I choose to follow someone. And if any friend reboosts stuff I don’t like (from Threads or anywhere else) I block that “friend”.
tal@lemmy.today 1 month ago
I agree 100%. I don’t need someone else overriding my existing right to decide whether I want to block or not (where is that going to stop).
To some extent, most instances already do that on some instances, whether they do it for Threads or not.
So, you’re @danie10@lemmy.ml.
Your home instance’s is lemmy.ml. Its federation list is at:
It includes in its blocklist 181 instances.
Now, you might well agree with some of those being blocked. Like, maybe they’re spammers or harassing people or God knows what. But…in that case, the instance admin is already blocking things.
I chose my home instance – lemmy.today – specifically because it was an instance policy to try to avoid defederating with instances, and it presently has an empty blocklist. But as best I can tell, most instances have some level of content or user behavior or whatever on other instances that they consider unacceptable and will defederate over.
millie@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Considering that their literal stated purpose is to create a curated list of ‘nice, well-run servers’, I don’t see how delisting someone is remotely outside of their wheelhouse. If a server is federated with meta, it’s not well-run. Easy peasy.
Nobody needs to be listed on Fedi Garden or has a right to be listed on Fedi Garden. They can still federate or defederate as they wish, just as Fedi Garden can choose to list them or not as they wish. Everybody gets to do what they want.
flumph@programming.dev 1 month ago
I love when people conflate rights and ethics. I agree with you that no one has a right to be listed on Fedi Garden. And I still think it’s not nice to take choice away from users.
FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Good.
Every instance should block Threads.
jarfil@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Facebook: “See? We comply with the interoperability requirements, It’s not our fault some instances gatekeep their users… go fine them”
helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 month ago
Federating with Threads only hurts Meta. It does not help them in any way. You are not doing them any favors. If you are concerned about reports of genocide attributed to Meta, then you should federate.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Federating with Threads only hurts Meta. It does not help them in any way.
This is completely false. The entire reason they’re federating is to instantly get access to a much larger pool of UGC for their users to interact with. And of course they get to also choose who to federate with and who to block, so they can choose instances that have the kind of content they want, all for free, while suppressing instances they don’t like. If your instance starts to try to “convert” people off of Threads, they can (and will) just block you.
Users who create accounts on Threads because they actually want to communicate with people they’ve heard of helps Meta. Defederating helps Meta.
Threads has more users than ALL fedi.db-tracked fediverse instances combined (Threads: 160m, Fediverse: 10m). They don’t need us for users, they need us for content. Just like Reddit, there are usually a few dedicated ‘content generator’ users on any given instance, who post the bulk of the UGC. Gaining access to those is Threads’ goal.
uis@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Even defederated instances can get UGC
helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 month ago
This is completely false.
It’s absolutely not.
The entire reason they’re federating is to instantly get access to a much larger pool of UGC for their users to interact with
Are you going to explain what UGC means?
The reason they’re federating is because of the Digital Markets Act. Same reason WhatsApp is going to interoperate.
And of course they get to also choose who to federate with and who to block, so they can choose instances that have the kind of content they want, all for free, while suppressing instances they don’t like.
Okay, and? What instances do you think they’re going to choose and why?
If your instance starts to try to “convert” people off of Threads, they can (and will) just block you.
…why would they do that? Why would they introduce something new just to turn around and try to prevent you from using it?
They don’t need us for users, they need us for content.
LOL they only need us to comply with regulations. You said it yourself, they have hundreds of millions of users, they don’t need more content. And they sure as shit don’t need content from users that overwhelmingly hate Meta.
millie@beehaw.org 1 month ago
May I direct you to Embrace Extend Extinguish. It’s happened before, and you’re a fool if you think Meta isn’t federating specifically to go this route.
jarfil@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Like Lemmy EEE-ing Mastodon?
Meta is federating because of EU’s DMA laws, and they’re going to do the bare minimum to comply with the law… then people will start crying foul because Meta is EEE-ing by not federating 🙄
helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 month ago
This is a topic that’s been covered a hundred times, with intelligent people realizing the “extinguish” doesn’t exist.
If Meta decides to stop federating then we are no worse off than we were before they started.
Corgana@startrek.website 1 month ago
Can you explain how defederating prevents Meta from extending open standards (ActivityPub) with proprietary capabilities, and using the differences to strongly disadvantage Threads competitors?
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
Then why is Meta facilitating it?
I actually expect it matters fairly little to meta either way, it’s basically just a fun add-on to their service, but it’s good for federation as a concept.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 month ago
Most likely to comply with the Digital Markets Act. Same reason they’re adding interoperability to WhatsApp.
FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 1 month ago
Federating with Threads only hurts Meta.
...
Defederating helps Meta.What the fuck are you talking about, That is the opposite of true.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 month ago
I already explained it in the comment you replied to. Maybe you’d like to explain what the fuck you’re talking about?
Melody@lemmy.one 1 month ago
I would argue that federating with either of the biggest companies on the fediverse is a monumentally bad idea.
Not just because of “Reports of genocide” or anything specious like that; which can be debated for days and days on end by people in both good and bad faith; but because both Threads and Meta are simply too large to be moderated correctly and be capable of managing basic issues such as harrassment and extended bouts of hate-speech which should never be considered acceptable; even if you do not necessarily agree with all of the goals and policies of the Fedi Garden; as strict as they are.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 month ago
I would argue that federating with either of the biggest companies
What other company are you referring to?
because both Threads and Meta are simply too large to be moderated correctly
They’re not. Meta is simply not motivated to implement proper moderation.
That being said, I acknowledge and agree that moderation is poor, which is, once again, why you should federate. To let people know they don’t need Meta.
Melody@lemmy.one 1 month ago
With that being said; I do fully support an Instance’s choice to federate, not federate or even limit their federation with them.
In most cases this should not affect instances; but unfortunately there are people who will ignore all warnings and use the Fedi Garden as a whitelist instead of a list of instances that you know will handle policy violations quickly.
On the other hand I absolutely also respect the needs of communities who ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY WILL NOT TOLERATE instances who choose to federate with either X, Threads, or any other instance they deem to be too toxic to play nicely. As instance operators you absolutely have the right to block problems BEFORE they happen, and if you happen to KNOW an instance will absolutely be a HEADACHE, you have every right to say NO. If the users do not like your decision; they are free to find a better instance for themselves; or spin up an alt account on a better instance.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 month ago
That’s just mad. Instances should have the free choice to choose. I am pro-threadseration
violetsareblue@beehaw.org 1 month ago
They DO have free choice to choose. Just as the site is free to choose who they list and what criteria they use for such. They’re not entitled to get listed if they don’t align with the site’s policies.
Choices doesn’t mean free from consequences or entitled to anything you want.
vii@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
They do have the choice. It doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with or respect that choice.
FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Strongly disagree.
Facebook is a major component of the return of fascism in the United States. Arguing for allowing them to federate is like arguing for ISIS to be part of the fediverse.
No. This isn’t the matter of making a choice. This is a matter of ensuring that outright poison isn’t allowed into one’s system.
danie10@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Especially when any individual can decide themselves to block Threads or Lemmy.
tal@lemmy.today 1 month ago
Cliff and his co-admin Kyle Reddoch are now working on their own alternative index, that doesn’t include this requirement. It’s a massive undertaking, and requires vetting communities asking permission for inclusion, and regularly checking in on community developments. Still, they’re optimistic.
“[We] are making a list on our Wiki of instance that both federate and defederate from Threads,” Kyle writes, “we feel people [should] have the choice themselves and not have someone else choose for them.”
I kind of think that it’d be nice if there were support for various instances claiming that they support various collections of policies, as it’d be an easier way to identify how instances work and choosing one.
Like, right now it involves manually reading through each instance’s sidebar, but if it were published in a standard way, it could be used to filter instances on lemmyverse.net.
And one instance could commit to multiple sets of (compatible) policies, doesn’t need to be just one.
FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 1 month ago
entering the Threadiverse
That's not a fucking thing. Threads doesn't own the Fediverse and they clearly are not welcome on it either.
tal@lemmy.today 1 month ago
“Threadiverse” isn’t a reference to Meta’s “Threads”.
It’s referring to the lemmy/kbin/similar portion of the Fediverse, the “Reddit-alikes”, as opposed to, say, Mastodon or Funkwhale.
petrescatraian@libranet.de 1 month ago
@hedge I dislike Facebook, so that's why I am here. But if the only way to stay in touch with people I know irl is on Threads, so be it. Either my server federates with Threads, or there's one more Threads user in this world.
Well, at least that's what many people would choose, imo. On the flip side, if Facebook itself would be federated and my server would federate with it, I would simply delete my Facebook account. Period.
I get that Meta is an outrageous organization, but people seem to forget the purpose of these platforms altogether - which is communication. And communications happen when other people use the same platform as well. And okay, let's say I have a managed Fedi server (which is the most hassle-free option of self-hosting, leaving money and legal stuff aside). What am I gonna do if, e.g. I get a Tinder match and the girl is asking me for my Facebook or Insta? Should I say something like "hey, I don't have either, but make an account on this random-ass website where only a few hundred people are there as well, and you don't know anyone of them personally"?
If people want to get people to leave the Meta platforms for Fedi and whatnot, then federating with Threads and educating people this way would actually be a better option imo.
eveninghere@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Well, I can agree with many points you made. I also think that FG is overreacting.
The only thing I want to say is that Fediverse by design lets administrators choose which instances they connect to. It’s rather unfair because there’s virtually no free alternative choice to fediverse, but as we choose fediverse, disconnection is a thing. The only question is whether FG is going too far this time. And if it is, we either convince FG to retreat or build an alternative to FG.
FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 1 month ago
I dislike Facebook, so that's why I am here. But if the only way to stay in touch with people I know irl is on Threads, so be it.
Do you see how they are already using their size to control and negatively impact the fediverse? The very fact you are arguing that.
If you know them IRL, you can tell them IRL to get off of facebook.
If they won't well, either keep talking to them IRL or reexamine who your friends are.
petrescatraian@libranet.de 1 month ago
@FfaerieOxide I think we all have our needs and wants, out of which all need to be addressed in one way or another.
The very fact we're having this discussion is a healthy sign that it's okay to have different opinions on such topics - no matter how wrong it sounds.
There is no one-size-fits-all, despite some people like FediTips/FediFollows/FediWhatever is thinking about people.
And bad people and entities exist all the time. They existed before Facebook, they existed with Facebook (and Meta), and they will exist after Meta as well. Just check any blocklist of any okay server and you will spot them.
If you know them IRL, you can tell them IRL to get off of facebook.
This didn't work, sadly. And it doesn't work because such platforms make you think that they are the default. That nothing exists beside them or that if it does, it's either dangerous or empty. Don't you even see that the first question someone joining Mastodon is "who is also there?". This is a good opportunity to show them that someone is there...
i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
Facebook is not (yet?) negatively impacting the fediverse. Fediverse users are.
flora_explora@beehaw.org 1 month ago
I see your point of trying to help everyone communicate with each other. However, as has been pointed out repeatedly in the last few months, the threat of a 3e strategy (embrace, extend, extinguish) applied by Meta is imo very real and dangerous to the whole fediverse. That’s why people want to defederate threads. And when large corporations use their huge userbase to make everyone else’s life harder and peer pressure you into joining them then that’s on them. I mean, there is a reason we few people are here on the fediverse. For most it’s probably making the effort to stay away from those privacy-invading, controlling corporations and create something by the people for the people. I get that it is tempting to be able to reach the masses stuck in platforms like Facebook or Instagram. But this comes with the real threat of destroying what we’ve build here. Restraining from federation however doesn’t cost us anything though, as we’ve already made the decision to get together here in this small community.
FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Agreed.
100% block Meta everywhere it’s trying to extend its poisonous tentacles.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 month ago
It’s not “very real”. Because people already on Mastodon right now aren’t going to suddenly switch to threads. We have nothing to lose.
petrescatraian@libranet.de 1 month ago
@flora_explora that's why you have to get as many people here before the last e phase ;)
Mikufan@ani.social 1 month ago
Rightfully so. They protect their Users from Facebook.
GONADS125@feddit.de 1 month ago
For the Meta apologists, I have a reality check for you:
Threads was immediately subject to mass amounts of radicalizing, extremist content, and there have also been instances of users having personal information doxxed on Threads due to Meta’s information-harvesting practices. [1]
Threads was marketed to be open to ‘free speech’ (read: hate speech and misinformation) and encouraged the Far-Right movement to join, who have spread extremism, hate, and harassment on Threads already. [2] Threads has been a hotbed of Israel-Palestine misinformation/propaganda. [3] They also fired fact-checkers just prior to Threads’ launch. [1]
As already established, Meta also assisted in genocide! [4]
Meta/FB/Instagram also have a strong history of facilitating the spread of misinformation and extremism, which contributed to the January 6th insurrection attempt. [5], [6]
This really should be obvious by now… but Meta mines and sells their user’s information.[7] Just look at the permissions you have to grant them for Threads…
FB users have to agree to all sorts of unethical things in the TOS, including giving Meta permission to run unethical experiments on their users without informed consent. [8] Their first published research was where they manipulated users’ feeds with positive or negative information, in order to see if it affected their mood. It did, and they successfully induced depression in many of their users!
I will now turn to an article that surmises well the core practices of Meta as a company:
Elevates disinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories from the extremist fringes into the mainstream, fostering, among other effects, the resurgent anti-vaccination movement, broad-based questioning of basic public health measures in response to COVID-19, and the proliferation of the Big Lie of 2020—that the presidential election was stolen through voter fraud [16];
Empowers bullies of every size, from cyber-bullying in schools, to dictators who use the platform to spread disinformation, censor their critics, perpetuate violence, and instigate genocide;
Defrauds both advertisers and newsrooms, systematically and globally, with falsified video engagement and user activity statistics;
Reflects an apparent political agenda espoused by a small core of corporate leaders, who actively impede or overrule the adoption of good governance;
Brandishes its monopolistic power to preserve a social media landscape absent meaningful regulatory oversight, privacy protections, safety measures, or corporate citizenship; and
Disrupts intellectual and civil discourse, at scale and by design. [9]
jarfil@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Let me help you summarize, like 80% of that comment:
2023 Word of the Year Is “Enshittification”
Overall, for as well researched and organized that it might be, it misses the main reason for Meta opening to the Fediverse:
Posted on March 6, 2024: engineering.fb.com/…/whatsapp-messenger-messaging…
25 March 2024, Brussels: Commission opens non-compliance investigations against Alphabet, Apple and Meta under the Digital Markets Act
GONADS125@feddit.de 1 month ago
Enshittification had already been largely discussed here.
I saw users minimizing the aberrant business practices of Meta and doubting their role in assisting in genocide.
My point was to highlight how unethical and horrendous Meta itself is.