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].
Any social media or advance size plays a role in promoting disinformation. Even small social media sites do.
There is an entire federated server full of nothing but communists
Only one of my many criticisms. And the fact that misinformation happens on other social media sites is a strawman fallacy you have created. The problem does not lie in the existence of misinformation; it is all about Meta’s response to it. They ignored, enabled, and perpetuated harmful misinformation and outright propaganda that led to deaths and radicalization of the masses. Don’t obfuscate from Meta’s aberrant practices with the shift in topic critism and whataboutism.
Not a good thing, and a total red herring and more whataboutism.
It’s not whataboutism if it’s serving my original point. You can’t remove all bad actors from social media because eventually the bad actors are just the gullible. It’s the same reason companies with good security policies can still have breaches due to the human element.
There has never been and will never be a social media platform that doesn’t contain morons spreading disinformation. My example of a community in this SM family being entirely communists is supporting that initial thesis.
I am aware it’s only one part of your post but the rest of your post is largely opinions (e.g. “harvesting my data is bad”) and not worth digging into. One either shares that opinion or does not.
You are absolutely engaging in whataboutism. Two things:
The existence of bad actors does not mean we should become complacent with bad actors.
Meta is a particularly bad actor, and the existence of other bad actors does not mean we should refrain from holding particularly bad actors especially accountable.
Your definition of “bad actor” seems based on your opinion of meta rather than on proof that they are a moustache-twirling villain, which is my entire point.
Wow, what a compelling argument! Not hollow childish accusations and distraction at all…
You sound amoral. You are arguing that mining and selling user data is permissible, and you are arguing that the clearly unethical business practices (in regard to widely accepted international ethical business standards) listed above does not qualify them as a bad actor.
What does in your opinion?? Do you find them providing information that leads to persecution, that aids in genocide as acceptable business practices??
I don’t know what to tell you man. You sound like you’re straight up astroturfing for Meta. We clearly fundamentally disagree.
Starting to genuinely wonder if these folks aren’t paid corporate shills. How did these people even find their way to an anti-corporate environment just to argue that Meta and all the rest are just fine people and that their absolutely terrible reputation doesn’t even exist? It’s straight-up gaslighting, their list of offenses and abuses is pretty long. Meta is certainly not above paying people to astroturf and defend its reputation. To anyone that knows a damn thing though, that ship sailed a long time ago.
maybe they’re playing devil’s advocate?
Totally, but it’s not supposed to be that literal :)
I’m not arguing that selling data is permissible, but rather that your view that it isn’t is an opinion. That’s why I didn’t bring it up in my initial response. You’re unlikely to budge from that opinion.
Not sure what you’re struggling to follow, but I also did not engage in any “childish accusations.” Are you responding to the right person?
If you’re genuinely curious then yes, I believe social networks should give free reign for others to espouse whatever they’d like, with the sole discretion being speech that could bring harm to the network itself (e.g. child porn and similar). Individual countries can pass laws banning certain communications if they so desire. I don’t see how that is a social network’s job.
Pretty sure it’s already illegal to plan a genocide online, so idk what to tell you.
I have no interest in arguing these points further, only answering because you asked. My point of disagreement remains what I pointed out above.
It’s sad that people are just downvoting you rather than engaging. This is becoming another Reddit-like echo chamber