Can I make a rule for my community that threads users will be banned?
If .world doesn’t defederate and threads users find their way into my community, I want to ban any that interact. Using anything meta related is a fundamental violation of the values I hold for using FOSS and the fediverse.
Would doing so violate the guidelines? I don’t see anything suggesting it would, but want to check.
Shouldn’t we educate Meta users about FOSS and the Fediverse?
I’m not even sure that Threads will actually open up to the Fediverse since it would allow people to interact with users/content on Threads without needing an Instagram/Meta account and without using one of Zuckerberg’s intrusive apps. People could actually ditch their Instagram/Meta accounts and switch to a Mastodon acount while still be able to interact with their existing/previous network.
There is actually a certain risk for Threads/Meta to loose users to Mastodon/The Fediverse. That’s why my initial guess is/was that Threads will either only federate in one direction, i. e. only allow their users to access federated content but not the other way, or that Zuckerberg believes that his apps are so much “better” (despite their privacy issues) that people prefer them over a FOSS alternative.
Now I see that Meta’s plan is much more clever. The mere threat of Threads connecting to the Fediverse is enough to begin the (E)xtinguishing, i. e. people (or are these Meta Bots?) are “threatening” to leave instances who do not proactively defederate from
threads.netinstead of trusting their admins to actually have a close eye on the situation.I do not trust Meta/Zuckerberg, because of its/his actions in the past. The very opposite is true for the admins of the fedivesre instances I have accounts on. So far they have acted very reasonable and worked their asses off to keep things running. That’s enough for me to trust them on actually keeping a close eye on the situation.
Thanks @ruud@lemmy.world and all the other reasonable admins like @kev@fosstodon.org! You are doing a great job!
I love your optimism but I think you’re grossly overestimating the capacity of the average Meta user to even grasp the topic, and that just goes for the handful percent of them who would care enough to listen in the first place.
I don’t really know that I have a duty to do that. And I’ve been beating the drum for a decade plus now. We see what little good it does. People just want the easiest UI/UX regardless of other considerations.
But I’m open to hearing your suggestion on how you teach someone on a corporate platform associated with Facebook how corporate owned internet is bad.
I could and should make my rule include a call to action to create an account on another instance. Is that sufficient education?I kind of agree with you here.
I can’t really articulate why I have a bad feeling about Threads but I just do. It’s owned by Meta which we know is just about as far on the opposite end of the spectrum as you can get from decentralization. They’re a HUGE corporation.
I just feel like I don’t want them anywhere near places like Lemmy because I feel like they’re going to try and ruin it, because they can’t profit off of decentralization.
Again, I’m not educated enough about this stuff to know HOW exactly they would do that, but I just know I like the idea of moving away from corporations and towards the fediverse, and I’m nervous about what will happen if corporations try to move into that space.
The tactics are known and proven. Your gut is correct.
EEEok yes!!! it feels like they’re trying to be all friendly and join our space but there’s something creepy and sinister about it
damn i can’t believe that’s actually a real thing
Thank you for linking to this. It’s a really good read and it further supports my opinion that federating with Meta is NOT a good idea.
Everyone needs to know about EEE if they don’t already.
I think that is a commonly espoused but problematic philosophy. It always sounds inclusing and like the morally right path, but it actually puts all of the onus one one party to educate the other, and none on people to educate themselves. Which in practice gives all of the power to one group and the responsibility to the other. Why should we educate Meta users? They have access to the internet, to the same information all of us do. They can educate themselves.
Putting out more information about how the Fediverse works is a great thing to do, but Meta users are not some gated community that we can only interact with by joining it. All of the content here is visible to anyone and if they want to participate they just need to create an account, it is not a big ask. The issue is not “do we want to interact with these people” because they are not exclusive groups, many of their users are users here too. The issue is whether we want to automatically allow a Meta group’s users a passport to act freely in our communities.
they can educate themselves, but they likely wont
recognising that doesnt make for a problematic philosophy, it makes for a realistic and practical one
crossing your arms and refusing to do anything about something you take issue with because ‘i shouldnt have to >:(’ is fine, and youre allowed to do it, but it still means that nothings going to be done about the thing you take issue with
sort of like how staunchly refusing to clean up after someone because they should just clean it themselves still means youre going to be wading through garbage, and refusing to accomodate the idiot driving in front of you because they should just drive normally still means your carll get totaled
If someone refuses to clean up after themselves I stop inviting them to my house.
and thats fine, and youre allowed to do it, and folks will remain uneducated
Dude, I’m sure you’ve used Facebook before. Facebook comments are cancer.
Better keep them far, far away.
Threads wont allow that. I would guess Threads will try to monetize in the fediverse.
No, you need to defederate from Meta, Threads and all that garbage and not allow corps a foothold into the fediverse. They’re going to try to ruin it for their own benefit. Don’t let them. They are inherently untrustworthy.
IMHO this is a really naive approach, we all know Meta is a bad actor whose business is privacy invasion and manipulating public opinion. Do you really want to expose the instance to them?
I think the question you should ask is what kind of impression are you making? From the perspective of someone who doesn’t know how open source or the fediverse works, they will see your actions as arbitrary and unfair (effectively this: !1984@sopuli.xyz).
That being said, I am going to have a zero tolerance policy for bending the rules or generally being a jerk from Threads users.
Some people resist anything FOSS and put trust in centralized authorities and their services. Threads users will use what they will and act as they do, but activity from Threads users isn’t necessarily always going to be activity that violates any guidelines or rules. Banning people because they access federation from a tool made by a bad company instead of a tool made by good independent work seems like stretching things beyond banning for end-user interaction behaviour, even though its the obviously more sound choice to use a FOSS solution for accessing federated instances.
How would you know what a user uses? Defederating from Meta and any instances that federate with Meta should be enough.
I can’t speak for what the guidelines allow, but my take is that it is something that should be handled at the instance level. Lobby to have them defederated, and if they are not it is time to look at moving to another instance.
That sounds like flat out discrimination. You don’t want to see people from Facebook? Well, I don’t want to see bigots.
Anti Facebook bigots? What race is that?
bigotry includes racism, it is not limited to racism
So you’re on board with defederating Threads, then?
No.
