their first strike results in a block.
What do you consider a "strike"? Does Meta's reputation and history not constitute a "strike"?
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
54 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
19 readers
2 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the federated social networking ecosystem, which includes decentralized and open-source social media platforms. Whether you are a user, developer, or simply interested in the concept of decentralized social media, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as the benefits and challenges of decentralized social media, new and existing federated platforms, and more. From the latest developments and trends to ethical considerations and the future of federated social media, this category covers a wide range of topics related to the Fediverse.
founded 2 years ago
Good question! By and large, some of the following would count as a "strike":
-
Poor moderation
-
Excessive spam
-
Most importantly: Making non-backwards compatible changes to the ActivityPub specification that may lead to the classic "Embrace, extend, extinguish" situation
-
Probably more...
Does Meta not already have a long history of poor moderation?
Threads as it exists now is poorly moderated in that it is 90% shameless self-promotional commercial content.
If your instance doesn't have a policy against horrible undisclosed commercial promotion, I want nothing to do with it. If it does, Threads already has hundreds of thousands of strikes.
By all accounts they haven't even federated yet and it's full of corporate spam.
I’d say any automated/integrated effort to direct users of federated instances to the threads site to view content should count as a strike. (Such as needing to go directly to the threads site to view an image that could be easily posted anyway.)
So should any automated/integrated effort to encourage users to make their own threads account. (Such as needing an account to visit this link or view this image.)
Any attempt to coerce non threads users to sign any sort of agreement or TOS with threads.
As well as any data collection on non threads users. Merely interacting with a federated threads account should not entitle meta to any data collection of that user.
is it even possible to federate with them without receiving thousands of posts per minute of barely moderated content that would drown everything else in the feed?
Most importantly: Making non-backwards compatible changes
That's the shift into "Extend" - they won't do this until their Embrace phase has enmeshed their users with other fediverse users so that defederation affects people's subscriptions.
I'm actually hoping Google or Microsoft or Apple etc create a compatible activity pub based service. That would create balance and make 'extend' problematic for meta.
I also think we need state actors and universities to start using Mastodon (not Twitter) - again that would make it difficult for Meta to deviate from standards.
Isn't Threads already illegal in Europe? There's your first strike
Not necessarily, however there are questions on compliance with the EU's Digital Markets Act which went into effect in May,. So the platform has been delayed until Meta determines or gets guidance from the EU to comply with the law.
The whole reason Threads was launched had everything to do with how Musk has been mismanaging Twitter over the past few months, and most especially the past week. This is why the platform is partly unfinished. Zucks took the opportunity to move up launch to capitalize on Twitter's mistakes.
And it looks like it worked.
Will blocking Theads on the fediverse prevent following individual accounts from there? If so that feels like a massive problem. I can understand wanting to ensure Threads doesn't start feeding ads and propaganda into the general fediverse streams and that would warrant a strike, but not being able to follow individuals feels like breaking the whole idea of fediverse.
view more: next ›