I used to think that there would be 1, main ‘Fediverse’ with all of the ‘big instances’ connected to each other. The recent Threads debacle has shown me otherwise.
The point of the Fediverse is that there is no one single entity, or group of entities, dominating it all.
Right now it feels like whatever the big instances do, we kind of have to go along with to be a part of anything. As the Fediverse grows, there will be more options to suit different types of users.
I think it’s fine if big instances federate with Threads and it’s fine if they don’t. People can just join instances that align with what they want. It’s not like defederating means being cut out of the Fediverse, that’s not possible.
Great design. I’m eager to see how it plays out.
You must log in or register to comment.
The most reasonable solution I’ve seen so far, from the pixelfed and pixelfed.social creator
Not the solution I was hoping for but it’s an extremely reasonable compromise. I’ve never heard of selective authorized fetch. Pretty sure he just invented it.
FOSS ingenuity at work. All it needs is adaptation and adoption.
Authorised fetch has been a thing on Mastodon and I believe Akkoma too. I don’t know if Pleroma, Soapbox or Misskey have it though.
Unless I’m wrong, the unique thing here is that auth fetch is always off for the server. It’s on only at the user level and it’s only on at that level if a user has an active domain block.
That could actually solve a lot of problems for people. Admins are reluctant to enable it server-wide because it causes a bunch of problems. The biggest being that it breaks federation with servers running older software (Mastodon v <3.0 I think) and with other services (Pleroma, maybe others). It also uses more server resources. But there are always people who think it’s worth it.
Authorized Fetch has been a thing for a bit on Mastodon at least - but as far as I can see it’s a global toggle rather than saying “If you present as a domain on the blocklist then you must be authorized to fetch this resource” (the selective authorized fetch I assume they’re talking about).
Never used Akkoma though, so I can’t speak for it.
That’s a good solution. Keeps the all feed clear of threads content while allowing users to opt in
For the lazy:
After some careful consideration, I have decided to block threads.net on pixelfed.social and .art by default
However, users will have the ability to unblock the domain
Soon we will be selectively enforcing authorized fetch for accounts with domain blocks so as to provide the best of both worlds.
(I’m also shipping a command for :pixelfed: admins to easily add user domain blocks for all local users)
I’m eager to hear your feedback!
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
I’m pro federate, but honestly, this seems fair. However Lemmy wouldn’t need it, as to see a threads post on lemmy, the person would have to @ the lemmy community in their post.
deleted by creator
All true, and making this a feature would simply be implementing the inverse of the new capability… overriding an instance level block instead of imposing one not already at the server level.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Jerry Bell did it first!
there is no one single entity, or group of entities, dominating it all.
This is what Zuck wants to change with Threads.
It’s not. He wants to create a social media that exploits its users without being accused of monopolistic behaviour.
All the tasty data collection and surveillance with none of the calories.
deleted by creator
they will have an excuse to do it openly instead of trying to do it secretly and inevitably getting caught
deleted by creator
Edit: Since so many people are misinformed: No, blocking Threads on an individual basis is not a solution. This only blocks posts from Threads showing up in your feed. It does not block Threads users’ comments from spreading hate and extremism throughout federated instances, and lemmy users will still be subject to potential harassment from Threads users. (See the harassment of the LGBTQ+ community on Threads for examples…)
Here’s a comment of mine that states my argument against federating with Threads.
Also, I was not trying to debate the issue here. I was looking for recommendations for alternative instances… I’d appreciate anyone actually responding to my comment.
Original comment: Anybody have recommendations on a decent instance that won’t be federating with Threads? Maybe one that allows community creation but isn’t full of tankies?
I’m jumping ship from .world if they go through with federating with Threads. Such a shame to see the effort put into building this great instance come undone.
This place decided to disregard what the majority of their users want and turn the neighborhood to shit way faster than reddit. I thought we’d at least have a couple years before instance admins started selling out to such a shitty company that’s going to make the fediverse a less safe place for their users.
Meta will also do anything they can to EEE and I’m not convinced the fediverse is as invulnerable to such exploitation as some users seem to be.
I don’t get, even if you are part of .world and they are federated with threads.
Can’t you just personally block all threads?
You personally can defederate without it affecting anyone else.
No, that’s a half-measure at best… It only blocks Threads posts from showing up in your feed. It does not block Threads users comments from showing up on federated instances, even if the individual user personally blocks them.
I am legitimately fearful for LGBTQ+ users, as their community members have already been harrased on Threads by the far-right.
Keep living in your made up fear.
I mean… I’m not the OP but I don’t think people against meta/threads fear their idiot userbase. We just don’t want to deal with them. At all. Anywhere.
Or we’d have joined threads.
deleted by creator
Just because Lemmy.world doesn’t agree with about defederating with meta doesn’t make them sell outs. Like you said, you are jumping ship; just like the fediverse intended.
For better or worse, Lemmy.world is intended to be a catch all instance for normies so it makes sense why they would not defederate from meta.
I disagree that they aren’t selling out.
I consider it to be as such when this move isn’t supported by most of their userbase, they misframe that blocking Threads is a viable solution for the rampant issues with hate/extremism, and the decision puts their users at risk (both in the form of extremism/harassment and exploitation by Meta).
It’s an inch towards becoming mainstream, but the costs outweigh the benefits IMO. I believe it’s hypocritical to defederate from exploding heads and then turn around and federate with Threads.
I think misleading users into believing they can block Threads (only the posts), making a decision against the majority of their community’s wishes, and instead subjecting them to potential harassment, misinformation and exploitation is selling out.
If the majority of users on Lemmy.world does not want to be federated with meta then Lemmy.world will lose those users and then no longer be the power they currently are with influence over the fediverse.
Also I believe it’s disingenuous to equate explodingheads, which was defederated for being extremely toxic due to its lack of moderation and meta which presumably has more resources to devote to moderation than any fedi instance (of course they are still terrible at it)
I’m for defederating with meta when the time comes because I don’t think that their influence is healthy for the fediverse and don’t think that most admins could handle the burdens that would come with federating with them. Lemmy.world (and mastodon.social and a few others) is a big enough instance that they could handle those challenges. I’ve said before that if meta only sticks to the open source AP spec then the risks are much less and so that should be the criteria for federation
deleted by creator
