@stux@amgine@CStamp it’s also really legally unenforceable. Facebook if they tried to collect text messages from people from another instance that has Creative Commons license, Facebook entire plan for profit would end up in court. Copyright infringement would also be problematic since many know the legal implications of images being protected.
I’m not technically inclined, so can you tell me if this is true? Could Threads collect our data? And someone also mentioned that a block isn’t a true block here.
@stux@lucybeahere That wasn't the question. The question is whether anyone on a Threads account can be blocked from seeing or collecting data from Mastodon users' posts. If the answer is no, then federating is a shitty thing to do to people
@lawyersgunsnmoney@stux@lucybeahereanything posted with public visibility can be collected by anyone regardless of them operating federated servers or not.
If information getting into Meta’s, or anyone else’s, hands is part of your risk profile be sure not to post with public option.
@lawyersgunsnmoney@stux@lucybeahere if you block the whole threads.net domain, no user from threads will see your data. If your instance's admin block the whole threads.net domain, it also applies to all users of your instance.
That's it. That's how federation works, and it applies to threads like to any other instance.
@pieselpriemel@Robotron@stux
According to Eugen Rochko it does block your posts from being delivered to a threads user:
"This hides all posts and profiles from Threads, prevents anyone from Threads from following you, and stops your posts from being delivered to or fetched by Threads."
Of course, ultimately everything we write on Mastodon is public on the web, so hiding from threads specifically only takes you so far.
@stux
A problem with such a contentious issue is that opt-out is not consent, moreso as blocking is hard (in the past I tried twice in the web UI and gave up).
So calling this choice is buying in to what on Facebook we call a dark pattern, the kind of trick that was prohibited under the GDPR which says a choice must be equally easy either way, and that defaults should err in favour of the user not the business.
I'd like #Mastodon to allow federation choices to meet the bar of consent #Threads
@markhughes
I thinks it's the point that either way must be as easy that's important here. If anyone wants to communicate with threads, if it's blocked at the instance level, then people have no choice.
Allowing people to block things they don't want to see is already part of the activitypub experience. You choose your instance, you choose who to follow, you choose who to communicate with. I don't think this pattern is dark, it's how this works.
@jonquass Then with respect you haven't understood my point. Saying that's how it works is also not an response to something that behaves this way in respect of a contentious "choice" foisted on those users who don't realise, can't choose, but who are here because they believe the values of the fedi are at odds with corporations.
Facebook / Meta have form don't you know, but the same issue is present with almost all big businesses eventually. Their goals and values are anti-human anti-fedi.
@markhughes
For what it's worth, I was responding to part of your post. It sounds like what you really want is for no federation to happen between Meta and ActivityPub, not necessarily pushing for GDPR compliance. I appreciate the directness of this argument over the previous one.
That said, I don't disagree that Meta isn't a "good" company, but I also don't believe in the existence of actual evil. If I can be on my platform of choice and communicate with more people, that seems like a net win for me. If something bad happens to me I'm free to block the domain. Of I don't like the overall impact on my instance I can switch to one that blocks threads. Your desire doesn't get to unilaterally decode that nobody should be able to do it. Just as if it was being banned pre-emptively, I would need to look for another instance because I want to see what the integration looks like, and I have friends and famiton other networks I'd like to keep up with still
@jonquass Personally I don't want any federation with Threads because I believe it will damage the culture here. I expect it can do far worse than that, but I don't get to decide this because it is a communal endeavour, albeit with dictators running the various instances.
To switch instance is a very poor option (BTW I've done it, most have'nt).
My GDPR argument is a response to those saying that federating gives users choice, and I'm pointing out that this is fallacious.
@markhughes
I wonder what the specific harm you expect to happen? Is it that you think that if you block the domain, but others don't, they will be so negatively impacted by their decision that you will no longer want to engage with them?
@jonquass I don't focus on specific harms. I have a view that corporations are in general a source of harm. If you disagree with that it may well explain the difference in our perspectives.
I'm not saying they do no good but overall I believe legal structures and incentives compel big business to do things which harm employees, customers and the ecosystem.
So my approach to tech is to shift the balance of power as much as possible away from corporations and towards individuals and communities.
@markhughes
I hear yah, I just want to point out that without specifics, you might not actually be helping individuals and communities. Real people and real groups have real needs, and connecting with each other is one of them. I agree with you largely in the abstract, but in the specifics I'm an individual who wants a choice when it comes to Threads, and I don't want another individual to take that away from me.
@jonquass different communities have different needs, and you can always use Threads.
If by federating with Threads you destroy the culture that created the fediverse then you are depriving a lot of people of that culture.
Nobody can have their needs met without infringing on others, so you are seeing things from your perspective, and thinking that doesn't have two sides.
@markhughes
I don't want to use threads though... I want to federate. Am I not part of the community here? Should I be afraid of something hypothetical because you want me to be?
Ultimately I'm on an instance that's going to federate with threads and that's what I want. You have the option of blocking or moving to an instance that blocks. I don't feel like being part of a community that's building walls without good reasons.
@jonquass Our values are similar, the difference is probably in our understanding or assumptions about what it will mean for the fediverse.
I don't expect the fediverse to survive whether Threads joins or not because I see other equally existential risks (in terms of what it represents) arising from the server/hosting model, which is why I keep saying things like "the fedi is the lifeboat but p2p will be the shore."
I'm just surprised that the folks here, particularly admins are so complacent
@markhughes
I feel like you hope it doesn't survive. I hope it does.
I also have the feeling that long term, something else will either replace or at least supplement ActivityPub. Historically, with software and protocols, requirements change, and everything will be replaced. I want to enjoy what i have now and not live in fear of an intangible threat. I have enough tangible ones to deal with.
@stux But as good as I know, if a user blocks an instance, she/he cannot access the content of the instance, but it is yet visible by the "blocked" instance.
Or is there any new version of the protocol?
@stux
Why would you want to block all the people on an entire instance from being able to see the content you are posting publicly? I am not understanding what's all the drama about? Aren't we posting publicly because we want people to see our content? Sure, #Facebook sucks and they shouldn't exist. But their users also just rolled into #threads and 99% of them don't even know about #Mastodon, why would they not be worthy of seeing your content? If anything it could motivate them to join us..
@stevenroose@stux I think that it should be the free decision of the user. Maybe you can understand why, maybe not... but the relevant thing is that the user should be able to do this kind of decision, especially because they are technically doable, just not implemented in the protocol.
That is not only about Meta, it should be the same if the user doesn't want to be searchable/visible for people of a concrete instance.
Just I say that the user should have the same degree of sovereignty about who can see his/her profile as the administrator of her/his instance does have.
@stux Thank you! I really appreciate having you as an admin, so I was dreading the thought that I may have to choose between this server and being able to explore Threads federation!
Hi. If I get a vote, I vote for #1. It looks like you have suspended them because of their invasiveness and lack of technical boundaries. I'm grateful for that.
However, I don't have the option to block an instance. I'm on a browser, duckduckgo. Tried it on Firefox too. Tried it with those awful servers you blocked (thank you for that)
Had a conversation about this earlier. You might find this interesting starting from this reply to the next couple
@stux I really don't understand. The original reason you had publicly for defederating from Threads was:
"A Meta company that needs drastical privacy improvements first to be allowed"
I am EXTREMELY doubtful that they made any improvements to privacy safety
Were improvements made, or are you caving to the people who either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge the dangers of corporate media encroaching upon the fediverse where most people came to get away from them in the first place???
@stux I came to the Fediverse explicitly to escape Meta and its invasive, data-scraping, warrantless sharing ways. They are the epitome of the parasitic monstrosity social media has turned into, and I thought moving to the FediVerse was a recalmation of the early internet's energy.
@stux problem is that threads is mining data from prople interacting with threads users, without any consent mechanism other then a statement in the threads EULA which fedi accounts probably didnt sign.
this would be illigal if it wasnt an american multinational doing it.
That was easy... Thanks so much for that 👍
I saw a threads instance from someone on my feed today and blocked it right away. Never thought of this though.
Add comment