There has been significant discussion in recent weeks regarding Meta/Threads. We would like to express our disappointment with the negative and threatening tone of some of these discussions. We kindly ask everyone to engage in civil discourse and remember that not everyone will share the same opinions, which is perfectly acceptable.
When considering whether or not to defederate from Threads, we’re looking for a decision based on facts that prioritize your safety. We strive to remain neutral to make an informed choice.
First, there seem to be some misconceptions about how the Fediverse operates based on several posts. We’ve compiled some resource links to help explain the details and address any misunderstandings.
Fed Tips , Fediverse , ActivityPub
Initial Thoughts:
It seems unlikely that Meta will federate with Lemmy. When/if Meta adopts ActivityPub, it will likely affect Mastodon only rather than Lemmy, given Meta’s focus on being a Twitter alternative at the moment.
Please note that we have a few months before Threads will even federate with Mastodon, so we have some time to make the right decision.
Factors to Consider:
Factors to consider if Meta federates with Lemmy:
Privacy - While it’s true that Meta’s privacy settings for the app are excessive, it’s important to note that these settings only apply to users of the official Threads app and do not impact Lemmy users. It’s worth mentioning that Lemmy does not collect any personal data, and Meta has no means of accessing such data from this platform. In addition, when it comes to scraping data from your post/comments, Meta doesn’t need ActivityPub to do that. Anyone can read your profile and public posts as it is today.
Moderation - If a server hosts a substantial amount of harmful content without performing efficient and comprehensive moderation, it will create an excessive workload for our moderators. Currently, Meta is utilizing its existing Instagram moderation tools. Considering there were 95 million posts on the first day, this becomes worrisome, as it could potentially overwhelm us and serve as a sufficient reason for defederation.
Ads - It’s possible if Meta presents them as posts.
Promoting Posts - It’s possible with millions of users upvoting a post for it to trend.
Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) - We don’t think they can. If anyone can explain how they technically would, please let us know. Even if Meta forks Lemmy and gets rid of the original software, Lemmy will survive.
Instance Blocking - Unlike Mastodon, Lemmy does not provide a feature for individual users to block an instance (yet). This creates a dilemma where we must either defederate, disappointing those who desire interaction with Threads, or choose not to defederate, which will let down those who prefer no interaction with Threads.
Blocking Outgoing Federation - There is currently no tool available to block outgoing federation from lemmy.world to other instances. We can only block incoming federation. This means that if we choose to defederate with our current capabilities, Threads will still receive copies of lemmy.world posts. However, only users on Threads will be able to interact with them, while we would not be able to see their interactions. This situation is similar to the one with Beehaw at the moment. Consequently, it leads to significant fragmentation of content, which has real and serious implications.
Conclusion:
From the points discussed above, the possible lack of moderation alone justifies considering defederation from Threads. However, it remains to be seen how Meta will handle moderation on such a large scale. Additionally, the inability of individuals to block an instance means we have to do what is best for the community.
If you have any added points or remarks on the above, please send them to @[email protected].
Your own article defeats your point.
They didn’t do any research to find out if they could do so intentionally, but realised from research that it was happening unintentionally, but that they could use some tools to affect how severe it would be, and then used those tools to make it less bad
Like there’s a link to the testimony transcript right there. Stop reading the fluff opinion and actually read the testimony.
Meta has done a lot of shady stuff, you don’t need to make up bullshit.
No it does not.
Alright Nick Clegg maybe eat my ass and stop pretending it doesn’t say it right fucking there:
Jog the fuck on.
EDIT: Why is every fucking comment in your history defending Meta? Literally 100% of your comment history is PR. Come the fuck on.
To your edit, most people aren’t “defending meta” they’re defending just not going scorched Earth before we have the facts, defederation can happen any day, why do it before we even see how it will be? I see no reason to exclude ourselves from millions of other users yet, yes meta is very concerning and should not be trusted, but what are we even trusting them with yet?? If they federate, nothing really changes to them, if we defederate, nothing changes for them.
My point is people are allowed to have different opinions than you, and one could say to you “why is every one of your comment history bashing expanding the fediverse”. Just give it some time and see how it goes and we react from there, ruud and his team are just as much users of the fediverse as you, and will do their best when the time comes.
For the same reason you don’t even consider putting kids in a room with a convicted child rapist.
There isn’t anything to consider here. They are not good people, they have nothing good in mind, they are not trustworthy, they have 100% knowingly killed people with their policies and taken absolutely zero action to change those policies to prevent further death.
Any admin making this a “wait and see” situation is demonstrating that they are irresponsible people who do not actually care about the safety of their users. All the people trying to wait are interested in is seeing what they can get out of it first, and they do not give a flying fuck about what meta have done in the past. They’re all demonstrating that they are completely willing to put people in danger if they think they can get enough out of it in exchange.
Anyone arguing for this is an absolutely reprehensible person.