I'm starting to think people that claim to like the fediverse dont understand the point. We want to be able to follow Threads accounts here without having to have a Threads account. That's the whole point.
No single entity is in control of social media. That's the glory of federation.
Blocking major companies from the fediverse will be the death of the concept. Don't silo yourselves in fits of hate and segregation or you're no better than the things you claim to protest. https://techhub.social/@HilliTech/112207853697301125
@HilliTech Ummm... hate to tell you but you're missing the point of "free choice" here. It's their choice to not federate.
I don't think you'd have a problem with blocking if your instance blocked - say a pro-LGBTQ-hate instance or a pro-terrorist-instance, or even a anti-abortion-instance...would you?
@jann They're free to block Threads and users are free to quit using the instance that isolated them from an entire social network. It goes both ways.
I'm all for freedom. People are free to do dumb things all the time. Why not block everyone in your instance from being able to follow the US president or government entities on Threads because you made the decision for them.
@HilliTech That's not the apparent intent of your posting. It SEEMED (forgive me) that by typing: "Blocking major companies from the fediverse will be the death of the concept." you were saying they shouldn't block threads.
You didn't indicate they should be able to. that sentence was provocative. That's why I responded like I did.
Yes, people have the right to block. MANY block threads for what they see as a good reason. I follow @potus but I won't go on threads itself.
It's more a question of whether Meta directs people to those protocols or not? Trying to Federate my Threads Profile was three clicks, but I had to hunt for it.
Threads (and other Meta) profiles should be federated by default.
I think it's a very strategic play from Meta. How the fetiverse is structured right now, they are the most frictionless way to get started and changing instances later on fairly hard. I think they're banking on people getting started on Threads and staying there because moving to a different instance will be too difficult.
@joshwayne@Jonathanglick@AAKL It’s probably part of the strategy. In my opinion, an important reason why they do this is to come clean in front of regulators, the EU in particular.
I’m not saying that as a criticism. Corporations have no souls, they just respond to their environment. In this case, the regulatory environment seems to work exactly as expected.
@o_simardcasanova@Jonathanglick@AAKL Absolutely. I think it's an easy way for them to fulfill the requirements of EU regulators without much risk of losing users. If Mastodon ever adopted architecture like Bluesky's PDS that allowed users to change servers easily, Meta would be fight it hard.
Add comment