41% of fediverse instances have blocked threads so far!!! : fediverse

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 50 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I've used this analogy before, but threads is like a huge, 5k passenger cruise ship docking in a small town in Alaska. You don't have to know ahead of time that the 2 public bathrooms, one at the general store and the other at McDonalds, aren't going to be enough. You can also forecast the complaining about how everything isn't really tourist ready. It will suck for everyone. The small museum will be overrun and damaged, the people will be treated like dirt. It's an easy forecast.

Here's the important bit, just because they've never been in the cruise line business, doesn't mean you have to give them a chance to ruin your town.

edit: made sentence make sense.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The problem with analogies is that they are not literally the thing that you're analogizing, so there's going to always be parts of the analogy that don't "work."

In this case, what resource is Threads (the cruise ship) actually using from the small town (the rest of the Fediverse?) that causes the inhabitants of that small town any actual trouble? The fact that people on Threads can read posts from people on the Fediverse doesn't actually affect people on the rest of the Fediverse in any way. If you're concerned about the converse - the Fediverse being overrun with content from Threads - that's not actually something that they're implementing.

[–] radiosimian@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

This comment feels like it's been on the Fediverse too long. To continue the analogy, your small town suddenly starts hosting a lot of voices on soap boxes. The more visited the town becomes, the more town criers it gets. Those criers bring their audiences, so not only do you have long queues for the two public bathrooms but you get fights in the town square; struggles over ideologies and all the underhanded trolling that entails. Corpos move in, governments move in, all eager to bend the ear of anyone unfortunate enough to get in grabbing range.

I liked Digg. I loved Reddit. At some point you just need to make a stand. Money and profitability aren't part of the equation, fuck'em. I'll keep my small town tyvm.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago (16 children)

that’s not actually something that they’re implementing.

That's not true, their CEO said that you'll be able to converse and comment without leaving the app in the near future. Also, most instance owners are small, they could be overwhelmed pretty easily.

I'm 100% sure that this small town isn't ready for a cruise ship. That's not to say, that in a year or two, we couldn't be prepared for it. Right now, the relatively small influx from Reddit brutalized the existing community. This is the wild, wild, west for Meta because they're not getting enough new users for their shareholders in their existing platforms, I'm sure they're salivating.

load more comments (16 replies)

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Is it really that big? I thought a bunch of folks tried it for a week then stopped--especially when they realized you can’t delete your account without also deleting your linked Instagram account (assuming you have one).

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

They can't have it both ways, is it 100 million and amazing or is it small and needing content?

[–] bogdugg@sh.itjust.works 39 points 8 months ago (1 children)

For clarity:

The 41% number combines both instances that have actually blocked Threads and those who have pledged to do so at some point, so "have blocked" is a bit misleading
As stated, this is a percentage of instances, not users. Roughly 24% of users are on instances that have limited, blocked, or pledged to block Threads.

[–] Devdogg@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How do we as users go about blocking them? Can we yet? Or do we have to wait for v .19?

[–] bogdugg@sh.itjust.works 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Pre-0.19 I assume you would need to be on an instance that is blocking them.

Post-0.19 you can block them as an instance, meaning "any posts from communities which are hosted on that instance are hidden"

So, the answer still varies depending on your goals for blocking.

[–] aroom@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

yes, on Mastodon when a user block an instance, it's more like a mute than a block. Your posts will still be available to them, but you won't see their content.

The only solution if you want to protect your content from being shared on an instance is to block it at the instance level AND that the instance use Authorised Fetch.

Not all instances have this feature on.

[–] Draghetta@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Isn’t “protecting content” on a public platform kinda moot?

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Indeed, it's downright incoherent on a protocol like ActivityPub. The whole point of a system like this is to let content spread around. This isn't supposed to be a walled garden, with all sorts of terms and conditions and DRM and whatnot. When you make a post and click "send" you're announcing that content to the whole world. Even to parts of the world that you may not like.

It's ironic that many of us came to the Fediverse because Reddit tried exactly this sort of nonsense.

[–] aroom@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I came to the fediverse in 2017, so nothing to do with reddit or meta or twitter.

The fact is here, we have a choice. So you do you.

On mastodon I have an account on an instance that blocked meta and is using authorised fetch (so the proper way to block a domain) : great, my content won't go there or on any other blocked domains : it's my choice.

I have another account on another instance that didn't blocked meta : great, my content will be shared with threads users and I will be able to browse threads.

Choice, isn't it great?

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I said many of us. I know there were people here already when Reddit had its meltdown.

I have no problem with individual instances federating or defederating with whomever they want. The problem is that there's a movement afoot to try to get everyone to defederate with Meta. That's what the "FediPact" is about, and this thread is about the FediPact. So I argue against that. If everyone defederates then there goes that choice you're fond of.

[–] aroom@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

where did you see that the fedipact main purpose was to impose defederation? that would be rich.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

https://fedipact.online/ reads:

"i am an instance admin/mod on the fediverse. by signing this pact, i hereby agree to block any instances owned by meta should they pop up on the fediverse. project92 is a real and serious threat to the health and longevity of fedi and must be fought back against at every possible opportunity"

What goal do you think a pact like that has? Do you not think they want everyone else on board? Don't waffle with some "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" sophistry. They want Meta locked out.

[–] aroom@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes and that’s their right.

But thankfully they don’t impose anything to anyone. You had me worried for a minute.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

Indeed, one of the great benefits of an open protocol like ActivityPub is that it's impossible to force stuff like this. So ironically, they're going to fail to impose their desired outcome for the same reason that they don't need to impose their desired outcome.

[–] aroom@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

protecting your content from being pushed to an instance that you though your blocked.
protecting your content from being shared where you though it won't because of the way things are worded.

[–] Draghetta@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And what’s stopping these people and these instances from spreading that content using just the publicly available link? Instead of just clicking “share” they’ll have to open an anonymous browser window and copy paste the link from there, the horror!

[–] aroom@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

define these people. define these instances. etc etc

what's your point? anyone can do a screen shot and share it too.

if you want to have a conversation about the content of my post, please keep it on topic : without authorised fetch and a domain blocked at the instance level, the content is pushed.

if you have technical knowledge to add to this or can correct me about the protocol I'm glad to hear it. if not I'm not interested.

[–] Draghetta@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

That was exactly my point. Blocking instances because “that way my content can’t be seen there” doesn’t make sense, because it’s trivial to bypass it. Yes, even a screenshot will do the job if nothing else, so why talk about protocols in the first place?

Somebody (maybe you maybe not, can’t check while replying) said that blocking instances was useful so that “my content doesn’t get seen / shared / pushed / etc to people and instances I don’t want”. That doesn’t make sense because of the line above. If you need clarification on who are those people and what are those instances ask them, not me.

I hope I’m somehow conveying my message. If there is a subtlety in the subject that I didn’t catch feel free to help me understand.

[–] Devdogg@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

Thank you!

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 22 points 8 months ago (2 children)

We haven't blocked Threads yet, but I haven't seen any content from it either. When exactly are Threads supposed to federate?

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Several months to a year. ActivityPub support is just in private testing.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago

When someone subscribes to them.

[–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 15 points 8 months ago

good.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

MOAR

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Rookie numbers, we gotta bump those up.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Meta is a cancer on the Internet.

[–] don@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Don’t stop now

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

They call em Mr Fahrenheit!

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how that breaks down in terms of numbers of users. The largest instances seem to have federated, and they’re the ones that cost the most to run, and Meta has vast amounts of disposable income. I worry Meta will fund some of them in exchange for influence.

[–] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Meta doesn't need to bother with back-channel influence peddling of existing instances. If Meta simply opened its own Lemmy instance it would immediately be the largest Lemmy instance by orders of magnitude.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

For all I know Meta or X or Reddit already control or outright own one or more instances. I don’t hang out wherever the fediverse admins hang out, so I don’t have any tea to spill.

[–] Amelia@transfem.space 5 points 8 months ago

Good to see so many instances work together to keep the evil out of the fediverse