Meta/Instagram launched a new product called Threads today (working title project92). It adds a new interface for creating text posts and replying to them, using your Instagram account. Of note, Meta has stated that Threads plans to support ActivityPub in the future, and allow federation with ActivityPub services. If you actually look at your Threads profile page in the app your username has a threads.net tag next to it - presumably to support future federation.

Per the link, a number of fediverse communities are pledging to block any Meta-directed instances that should exist in the future. Thus instance content would not be federated to Meta instances, and Meta users would not be able to interact with instance content.

I’m curious what the opinions on this here are. I personally feel like Meta has shown time and time again that they are not very good citizens of the Internet; beyond concerns of an Eternal September triggered by federated Instagram, I worry that bringing their massive userbase to the fediverse would allow them to influence it to negative effect.
I also understand how that could be seen to go against the point of federated social media in the first place, and I’m eager to hear more opinions. What do you think?

  • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Please for the love of Internet connectivity as a whole: block anything remotely attached to Facebook, not just the instance, but in general Internet daily life.

    Zuck should die forgotten.

    It does not go against the point of the fediverse to do so, either. Why would the ability to do this be baked into the code if it was not the intent to use it in certain situations? This would be a perfect use.

    I can see maybe certain instances wanting it for whatever reason, but I’ll be packing up and moving to one that blocks it if this one allows it.

    • 2Blave@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. With the nature of the Fediverse, defederating with anything from Meta doesn’t really restrict access for those who actually wish to interact with them. They can simply join their next nefarious venture.

      The drawbacks to interacting with a company that so obviously only chases profit above all else far outweigh any "benefits " of their content.

      Ser Robin had the right idea: bravely run away.

    • sonstwas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Playing devil’s advocate a bit here:

      Considering that I rate Facebook as evil as Google, would you support “defederating” Google Mail from other mail services?

      In my opinion, the fediverse/ActivityHub is just the underlying protocol to enable people to connect to each other just like SMTP and whether I want to contact someone using a service provider that I don’t like is my choice and should not be the choice of my service provider…

      • meat_popsicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        would you support “defederating” Google Mail from other mail services?

        Not OP, but yes. They have entirely too much control over email traffic. You have to play ball with Alphabet or not at all if you want to host an email server today - I don’t want that to be the fate of the fediverse as well.

        • Difficult_Bit_1339@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t you see how that would make e-mail worse for everyone that uses e-mail?

          Imagine having an e-mail address but you couldn’t send an e-mail to your friend because for whatever reason your e-mail server decided to not block Gmail. That makes e-mail worse for everyone.

          It’s the same here, we’re trying to get away from social media silos and move towards a protocol that lets everyone participate. The kneejerk reaction here is to just create a new silo that has different owners instead of just being part of a network that shares a protocol.

      • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My understanding is that the main problem is allowing them to get any foot in the door in the first place. They are not in it to be nice, they are in it to beat out and absorb the competition for their gain. The fediverse is about giving users a place to go that’s not full of ads and algorithms. They only see us as untapped revenue streams.

        • sonstwas@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          While that’s true, other instances will eventually also need to find a way to make money. And unless you’re on the Facebook instance you shouldn’t see their ads (unless they inject those ads as posts).

          The Facebook crowd can only assimilate us when we switch to their instance. I see a point where new users would prefer a bigger, i.e. Facebookey instance over smaller ones when they don’t know anything about the fediverse.

          • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s fair but there’s a difference between getting donation money to keep the server running (Wikipedia) and trying to get every cent you can from user data and targeted ads.

          • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No. I disagree. They already used to keep tracking metadata on non-users (admittedly, I’m beyond sketchy on the details here), they’re not at all welcome here.

            They already know too much about me