Dear server admins, please defederate threads.net. Dear users, ask your server admin to defederate threads.net.

Yeah dude let’s just federate with an instance maintained by a corporation that has undoubtedly caused a genocide in Myanmar by turning a blind eye to a far-right hate speech group that caused an entire fucking minority to flee into another country.

I don’t get why people are supporting and saying “oh it must be up to the user” like bro this is the company we’re dealing with. Fuck that fuck threads fuck zuckerberg i don’t want his shit cancer near something that’s going well so far.

Israel have been successfully pressuring meta to remove and shadow ban accounts sympathetic to Palestinians. The level of censorship is crazy.
- OK, I'll bite. You got something more substantial than "I read it on the internet" to back that up? One reputable source on your accusation? Not sayin' you're lying/wrong, just asking for some verifiable proof.
- And thus is the problem with charging tech oligopolies with being the arbiters of truth: sometimes they disagree with you, but whatever they believe is "the truth", because they make it so.
- If they want to hang out with us, they can make an account somewhere other than thread, bam, done!
  "make another account somewhere" isn't really what federation is about.
Please explain how federating with Threads is "supporting Meta" and not the opposite.
- I’m not sure if federating will help meta so much as it will definitely (most probably) hurt the lemmy/mastodon network.
  Here’s a similar case that happened before, with the XMPP protocol being coopted by google but eventually killing it in favor of their own proprietary solution:
  https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
  Big tech isn’t on our side, and we have to handle outside corporate influence with heavy skepticism.
Excuse me sir, i cant be more agree with you
- me too _

Wtf does EEE mean, why must people assume everyone knows every acronym
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
- This was being discussed actively months ago. People would say the full embrace, extend.... then, but now there's a somewhat fair assumption that most who are actually on Lemmy might have the reference by now.
  All you have to do is say, "what does EEE mean? " without the second half of your statement - no need to get angry.
I don't believe the people saying "just wait and see" are genuine users. I have a hard time fathoming that after Meta's atrocious history, as well as the history of what happens when large corporations get involved -- I simply can't believe these are more than paid shill accounts.
Or maybe I'm the one who's naive, thinking that people can't possibly be so foolish...
- "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupitiy, and I'm not so sure about the universe." - attributed to Albert Einstein
- Sadly you are naive. People truly are that foolish.
You'd be a moron to trust them obv, but how would Threads using ActivityPub extingush the Fediverse?
- Especially given that Meta needs federation to comply with the Digital Markets Act.
DECADES long? Facebook didn't even exist 2 decades ago bud. We know they're shit but you don't need to go around exaggerating everything and being so dramatic.
- Please. Per wikipedia
  Created in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg with four other Harvard College students and roommates
  Okay, 19 1/2 years. Hope that's more pleasing to you.
Textbook FUD.

Let users decide because we’re fucking adults.

Yeah dude let’s just federate with an instance maintained by a corporation that has undoubtedly caused a genocide in Myanmar by turning a blind eye to a far-right hate speech group that caused an entire fucking minority to flee into another country.
I don’t get why people are supporting and saying “oh it must be up to the user” like bro this is the company we’re dealing with. Fuck that fuck threads fuck zuckerberg i don’t want his shit cancer near something that’s going well so far.
Then go join threads.net? Nobody's stopping you from doing that. That would put you on a server friendly to your beliefs.
Server admins also have opinions, and are not required to take a democratic vote and each individual user's choice into account. They can decide for themselves, and they will, for good or ill. If you don't like where it ends up, your user decision should be to fuck off to threads.
- I don't think that's what they're saying.
  They're saying that some users and admins might choose to wait and see
- I don’t want to join a proprietary service, but I want to be able to communicate with people who chose to join it.
Great thing about the fediverse
People get to decide what they want from their platform
- Surely you're aware of the embrace, extend, extinguish corporate strategy.
  People only get to decide what they want from their platform until facebook starts extending the spec. Then your client will become incompatible with some posts, and so on and so forth.
  In summary, it's a threat to the platform itself.
- Exactly, I hereby decide that I would like to ignore corporate efforts to undermine this burgeoning new platform. I furthermore reserve the right to complain about the loss of said platform in future years by claiming that it's everyone elses fault for allowing corporate encroachment.
- The above is solvable if you block them I guess, but by default it will completely ruin everything.
  Yes. One minute of a user’s time and all that’s gone.
  Compare that with having to move instances due to admins blocking at the instance level.
- How about adding a feature to “unlist” an instance, where you could interact with it normally, but its posts wouldn’t show up in All, Popular, etc.?
You have the full right to decide, you can switch servers to one that chooses to, or open multiple accounts. That's your choice. This isn't Nostr, in the Fediverse instance blocking is normal and it happens without your input, but you know what does happen with your input? Registering your account on a server that fits your needs best, or as close as possible.
This. Imagine begging daddy admin to protect you from mean Meta.
- Imagine zucking on Marks schlong.
- You understand that no matter how much you kneel down to service Meta, Zuck the Fuck won't be trickling anything down on you that isn't a bodily fluid, right?
  And hey, I'm not going to kink-shame. Just pointing out that if that isn't your specific kink, you might want to wake up to there being zero dollars trickling down to you.
Generally, yes. Perhaps unpopularly, I don't need to decide about suddenly having meta content in Lemmy. I expect that's not ever gonna happen.
Having Elongated Musk or Fart Suckerberg in my stream cannot be the default, but at best, opt in.

lemm.ee already made the decision, based off of the voice of the community to defederate from Threads

Lemmy.Ca admins blocked Threads about 5 months ago: https://lemmy.ca/comment/901551
You can confirm that Threads dot net is still blocked by Lemmy.Ca by going to https://lemmy.ca/instances and clicking on the "Blocked Instances" tab.
- Thanks, I actually forgot that one can check!
  lemmy.dbzer0.com also blocked Threads

please take a look at the replies under zuck's own post in threads.net and determine if that's the type of content you want.

for those who don't want to visit, majority of the commentators are bots. some advertising crypto, and others asking for money.

even if you think you can individually block those accounts, keep in mind the size of threads compared to fediverse.
for Lemmy: monthly active users are barely ~~150K~~40K, while for threads it's 100 million. there's no chance you can control that inflow of bots.

and if it still doesn't convince you, you can read threads' privacy policy, which states that they'll gather all that pii if you interact with their content.

most of the internet is already bigtech, I don't want Lemmy to become another arm of it. though I have faith in my instance maintainer and dessalines, the dev.

Comment stolen from user "copygirl" from blahaj.zone:

Looks like they'll be harvesting your data if you follow anyone from Threads, maybe even injecting ads. Unsure what happens to the data of people that get followed by a Threads user. A large part of the fediverse is here precisely because they want to escape corporate meddling, data-hoarding, advertising and other anti-user malpractices. There's a number of people talking about this, here's a recent post that highlights some of the things from their TOS.

Anyone can collect the data anyway, and I'm sure at least one person out there is already harvesting our Fediverse data.
- There's a big difference between some random person and Meta collecting the data.
Is there any sort of legal precedent that covers a situation where:
I am a user on a network server.
Meta connects their server to my server so their users and I can interact.
Am I now bound by a terms of service on Meta's server that I have not agreed to and may have never seen or been presented with?
When I joint my instance, am I implicitly agreeing to any terms of service that exist on any instance that my instance decides to federate with?#
- Someone actually asked an almost identical question on StackEx a while ago. (things may have changed since) From what I got from skimming the answer, is there is precedence, and it should be covered within the TOS of the hosting website/network (i.e. lemmy.world)
  https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/7773/does-a-tos-also-apply-for-third-party-resources-on-a-website
Lemmy and mastodon profiles are public so I don’t know if privacy concerns are a problem unique to federation with meta considering they could just scrape your profile if they wanted the data that bad. I’d be much more concerned about small instance admins losing funding as users migrate to instances that federate with meta until threads and the big instances are the only ones left on the fediverse
How can they possibly steal any data other than what you publicly shared on the internet?

In favor of defederation. If I start seeing garbage from threads in my feed, I'm switching instances. I don't want Meta pushing their divisive, hateful, misinformation all up in my feeds. Meta will kill fedi. We don't need them.

Yeah. I'll switch to an instance that is defederated from Threads, if mine doesn't.
I left Meta's other properties to avoid state sponsored hate speech. I won't use a platform that gives hate speech a platform.
I don't need to wait to know if Meta will do that. I already know.
I'm onboard with this as well. I can't imagine this instance would federeate with Threads, and I respect the admins here a lot, but I'd lose that respect and trust immediately if we aren't smart enough to defederate from Threads. We've seen what happens when these tech giants get their claws in anything.
Serious question though - how would you? Meta can't push content in your feed. The only reason you're going to see Meta in your feed is if the community here (or people you follow on mastodon) decide they want to show it.
If I start seeing garbage from threads in my feed, I’m switching instances.
You can just block the domain on a per-user basis for yourself instead of trying to control content what others see just because you don't like it.
- Has that facility been added to Lemmy yet, even?
Why not just block the instance?

I remember what the standardising committee did to XMPP: users wanted to share photos, send files, and make audio/video calls; XMPP said "we're not going to standardize that, but each application can use its own extensions"... then it all went to hell.
XMPP is still alive and well, is it not?

Currently, I think there are two main branches of ActivityPub implementations: Microblogs(Mastodon and its forks, the microblog portion of kbin), which are user centric, and group based aggregators(Lemmy, Kbin, peertube, future Pixelfed), both of which are valid implementations, however, they don't really work well with each other.

So, I believe that the threat of Threads to Lemmy instances is really overblown for the simple reason that there is no way for a Lemmy user to browse microblog contents through federation to begin with, whether it be Mastodon or Threads.

Kbin actually does let you look at and browse microblogs as well as threads.
You mention kbin/mbin, but you do not understand its power!
- https://lemmy.world/comment/5715981
  This person who responded to me didn't think so. Maybe you can talk to him about it.

How to kill a decentralized network (such as the fediverse)

But there’s one thing my own experience with XMPP and OOXML taught me: if Meta joins the Fediverse, Meta will be the only one winning. In fact, reactions show that they are already winning: the Fediverse is split between blocking Meta or not. If that happens, this would mean a fragmented, frustrating two-tier fediverse with little appeal for newcomers.
How would defederation from meta lead to killin fediverse ?
- Basic EEE strategy (embrace, extend, extinguish). For example, take XMPP. It was a wonderful federated chat protocol. Google joined it with its Google Talk application. All was well. Until it wasn't. You see, Google added some "new features" that could be used only with the Google talk app and account. So people flocked to it. All is still well. But then google decides to close the gates - Google Talk is its own thing now and you can't talk to people on other servers or with other apps. Take what hapoened wit XMPP. Google embraces XMPP with Giogle Talk. Google add some shiny "new features" that are exclusive to Google Talk (extend). Google cuts off XMPP access to other domains other than the Google Talk domain, thus finishing the extinguish phase.
  Just replace Google with Meta/Facebook/Zuckerberg, Google Talk with Threads and XMPP with ActivityPub/Mastodon/Lemmy and you can see how it could happen. The XMPP Wikipedia page has it covered very well, and there's a dedicated Embrace, extend, extinguish page on Wikipedia if you want to read more.

Let's not defederate from every corporate player. Some of them can probably respect reasonable rules of civility.

But fuck Meta. We already know how this plays out.

We know there's a huge wave of hatred and misinformation incoming. We've seen it on their other platforms.

When Tumblr came out about the idea of opening up and using activity pub people were in favor of that idea. It's not just hating companies, Facebook really has a bad track record when it comes to abusive practices and also extremely poor content moderation (you can find right wing hate speech on Facebook despite them having policies against it, people report it and nothing happens).
There was an interesting paired poll done, asking about federation with Threads and federation with Tumblr.
66% of people were wary of or actively opposed federating with Threads. Fewer than 20% were wary of or actively opposed federating with Tumblr.
It's not "defederate from every corporate player". It's passing this message on to Meta:

Okay. I’ve seen stuff like this on both mastodon, and here, but i haven’t heard about them doing anything that would actually harm the fediverse. I guess i don’t know what the problem is. I know they’ve got a negative reputation, and for good reason, but isn’t that the awesome part of threads being federated? We can follow and connect to people there without being part of their system, and therefor not susceptible to their bs? If I’m missing something please fill me in.

It is inevitable that Meta will try to kill the fediverse while chasing profits, there is no other possibility in their endgame.
If that is pushing ads into other instances or killing those instances entirely we don’t know yet but it will happen.
It has to because the shareholders must always have more.
- I just don’t think it’s possible for something to kill the fediverse. And if it is possible, then it is a flaw in the design of the fediverse and needs to be fixed.
Give https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html a read. Might sway you, might not.
- This is an excellent point. Thanks!
  in that case considering meta is saying that it would take nearly a year to federate the platform we probably should defederate them.
Just think:
Meta has literal billions of users.
The entire fediverse has about 1.5 million.
Less than a fraction of a percent.
Why in THE FUCK would meta notice, or care, at fucking all? The entire fediverse of traffic ported over to meta wouldn't budge their advertising bottom line.
But, it's a comparatively small group of smart people, having conversations, and profiles they don't have tabs and near total control over.
There's news about cop city and gaza I have seen here that I've seen NOWHERE else.
Don't let them control the narrative here
- There is one big reason why they would care - antitrust and EU regulation protection. They have no intention to destroy the platform Rather they want to please the regulators as they are leveraging the open standards. The EEE strategy is a conspiracy theory. Government regulations are the most probable reason for this change.
- But that's good. Meta doesn't care about Lemmy or Mastodon because they're tiny. Threads is a threat to Twitter. They want to integrate with Mastodon just because Twitter doesn't. That's it.
  They're not going for "total control" of your conversation about Gaza. You are not important to them. You are not the main character in some David and Goliath story. There are only Goliaths.
- Well, then, let’s make our point I’ll just email the holders of the instances I’m on and let them know I support defederating threads
- Why in THE FUCK would meta notice, or care, at fucking all?
  Why do people ask rhetorical questions without following through?!
  This is a question that should be asked. If, indeed, the fediverse is so unimportant WHY THE FLYING FUCK IS META INTERESTED IN FEDERATING WITH IT!?!? THAT is the question people should be asking, given that Meta does nothing that isn't designed to add more money to Zuck the Fuck's portfolio.
  And yet … most people (for clarity, I don't mean you here!) don't ask that question. They don't take that question you ask and wonder beyond that first kneejerk level. Use that question instead as a "LOL Meta doesn't care about the fediverse" piece of evidence.
  And this is why we can't have nice things.
- The fediverse is an emerging threat. It's not ready yet, but it's on the right trajectory. Every time there's angst on some other platform, the fediverse get's a bump. Fediverse is not a real competitor yet, perhaps it never will be, but for meta it's sensible to establish a presence here in the short term, because it may be much more difficult later.
- Threads doesnt have that much users I think. Fb, insta and whatsapp do have a lot of users but I dont expect a lot of users comming from there
Meta will be okay making money off lemmy indirectly for a while. Then, if they grow, they'll want more than a toehold.
When it's Facebook, trust that greed and power are the goals.
People are concerned because there were examples of such things going horribly wrong, most notably with Google and XMPP.
Way back in the day, Google announced that its Talk messenger will support XMPP, which made decentralization fans very happy - finally, they can communicate with everyone from the comfort of their decentralized instance!..oh.
Google started implementing features in Talk that are incompatible with XMPP, and then dropped XMPP support altogether, ending up deprecating Talk in favor of Google-only Hangouts. This forced many XMPP users to get into Google's ecosystem, since the people they contacted through XMPP were mostly just using Google Talk, and they couldn't be contacted through XMPP any more. As a result, XMPP became worse off than it started and got practically forgotten by all but 1,5 nerds who keep it alive.
now most of their contacts were in defederated Google to which they now didn't have access.
- this ☝️. Those of us who remember what happened then, understand the potential dangers of federating with a juggernaut like META.
  We should tread lightly!
- This forced many XMPP users to get into Google's ecosystem
  No it didn't
  As a result, XMPP became worse off than it started
  Wrong again.
@Creatortray
You've just written it : their negative reputation for easaly understandable reasons. We can already foresee Threads will very soon be used to spread the most toxic campaigns on the net and that will undoubtably harm the Fediverse. One of the most valuable trait of the Fediverse is its decentralization and consequently, the potential accountability of any server administrator. Why should we take those risks when it's so easy to avoid it? #BlockThreadsOut
@mypasswordis1234
- @Nelfan @Creatortray @mypasswordis1234 if my server federates with #Threads and it creates a problem, I’ll stop supporting it and move to one that doesn’t.

How about users make decisions for themselves and block Threads if they want?

- Threads said that they're going to be opt-in. Each user will have to actively enable federation, so all this scary news seem a bit pointless to me.
I think the issue here is users data will be on threads server which god knows how it will be used. To train AI? To target ads ? Nobody knows so better everyone block threads and keep internet safe as these companies have destroyed internet.
- Public Mastodon posts are already indexed by search engines.
- Anything that touches the internet can be scraped. Mastodon DMs aren't encrypted, and public posts are obviously public. There's nothing stopping someone from using the API or any web crawler to harvest data on mastodon users anyway.
  Not arguing for/against threads, tbh I don't even use mastodon much because I don't really like the idea of microblogging to begin with
Why not just let the serial killer psychopath hang out in the mall, if people don't want to hang out with them they don't have to.
This is the way.
I fully support this.

If anything meta integrates here I'm out.

We should avoid making blanket demands like this to the fediverse as a whole. I happen to support your position, but we should take into account the diverse nature of the social web.

Instead of making demands, explain your reasoning and leave each community to make up their own mind. This is the beautiful nature of the social web; we have broken decision making down into many smaller units instead of one mega instance/corporation.

Find a community that resonates with your own thinking on this issue, and over time a thousand different servers will gather experiences and a picture will start to form; was federation with Meta a good or a bad thing?

Yeah, close that protocol! Build the walls around our garden higher! No need to wait for them to actually do something worth defederating over, we just don't like them!

This is silly. A major social media network is trying to join the Fediverse and everyone's keen on stopping it. If Meta does something dirty or damaging, sure, defederate them then. But I was kind of hoping that open protocols would flourish, not just end up as another bunch of balkanized forums and Reddit-likes.

If you haven't noticed them doing dirty or damaging things for the last twenty years, feel free to engage with them.
There's more than enough evidence to show their intentions are far from pure.
- "yes, they kill, torture, brutalize, pillage, and kick puppies, but if we don't allow them an equal voice, can we truly say we are any better?"
  Yes. Yes we can.
Ever play Plague Inc? The secret to winning is to not become deadly until you've already become engrained and established throughout society. Then you add the deadly features once you're too deep in.
Don't let the cancer establish itself as something innocent. The owner of the platform WILL take any opportunity to seize control of the media so it can seize control of the message.
- I just love this comparison 🥰
- Pandemic Legacy is a great game.
I'm sure Meta won't be awful this time! Sure they've been awful quite literally every single chance they've gotten, but they won't be this time!
- I'm not saying they won't. I'm saying there's no reason to defederate preemptively.
- Damn. Better block it now because we literally can never go back to reassess.
  Fuck I wish we had more time to decide!
Federation means you can defederate for any reason. It's not a set of principles, it is an ontological arrangement whereby power is distributed. Plenty of users will look for defederated instances to join because keeping facebook out of our shit is what we want. You are free to find instances that are federated. Nobody will stop you.
And as for things they've done, personally I find that knowingly stoking genocide in Myanmar is enough for me to not give them any more chances.
How many times does Meta have to show you who they are before you start paying attention?
I'd be closer to agreeing with you if XMPP didn't completely invalidate your point. They did it there and they'll do it here.
- XMPP works great, you just have to use it. It doesn't invalidate anything.
If you like meta so much, why are you here?
- I don't like Meta. Why do you assume everyone has to be on one "team" or the other? I'm in favor of open protocols and open protocols can be used by anyone. Even if you don't like them.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
You are either innocently unaware of how it works or just dissassociating from reality. Meta has to compete with Fediverse if it can't directly harvest user activity for marketing and advertising systems. They quite obviously will (have to?) do everything they can to influence technical decisions that allow them to steer the protocols in a way that is profitable rather than for the good of the end users and communities.
They ultimately will seek to build walls around their development and services on their terms and leave others not part of their profitable ecology of development outside of those walls. They are a publicly traded corporation, this is just a normal evolution in for-profit corps, even if current employees do act as positive curators of community engagement.
The protocol only needed an open license that forbade profiting off user data.
- That's a pretty big restriction for an "open" protocol.
The microbloggers are a bit different than us, in that they actually try to create a "social circle." Threaded discussions with random assholes like we enjoy tend to be more focused on giving us someone to reply to.
Defederation is part of the protocol.
At least make your rhetoric somewhat resemble reality? Please?
- They're confused and likely think that federation means no rules and unconditional access to any server from your account, when it couldn't be further from the truth. I've said it elsewhere but people craving that don't want the fediverse, they want Nostr.
  This place is the way it is, why it's enjoyable to be on, because we can and do defederate servers run by bots, trolls, or any other malicious actors, otherwise they run wild.
- Yes, and I've got nothing against defederation. Once there's actually a reason to defederate.
This IS Facebook. It's guaranteed. They're evil. Block them now.

What exactly is "pushing their crap"? Chances are it will be more moderated and less arbitrary than what passes through from some lemmy instances. Hatred and misinformation? Harvesting your data? Like this isn't already a factor with lemmy? In the Fediverse, we have admins who flagrantly break their own TOS. Plus it seems to me this is an opportunity for lemmy to get advertisement at Threads' expense.

I do see it as a potential problem with moderation on Lemmy's end. You have all of the users from Threads interacting with Lemmy and Kbin users. It's possible there's an influx of accounts on here that are trolling, and it becomes unmanageable to moderate everything on Lemmy's side.
But Threads will have no problems with content moderation.
- I really, really doubt that this is going to be a concern. First, while technically Mastodon can interact with Lemmy, in practice how often does it happen? It's not zero, but it's not a lot, either, and I doubt that Threads will change that much because while it's a neat technical feature, link aggregators and micro-blogging platforms are pretty incompatible culturally.
  And then we have to remember that we're talking about Threads normies. Do we really think that a bunch of Swifties and Kardasholes and other influencers are going to look at the absolute zoo of Marxist/Anarchist/Linuxist users on Lemmy and be like "this is the type of content I've been waiting for, I need to interact more with that community"? This reminds me a lot of neckbeards saying they wouldn't date Megan Fox because she has weird thumbs.
  And then we have the whole thing with the actual fediverse and the tech behind it. There is still going to be no algorithm artificially inflating the popularity of what are thinly veiled ads. Meta has no mechanism for introducing ads into the Fedi. Lemmy is not suddenly going to be massively interested in the vast majority of content on threads and start upvoting to the moon.
  And the dev team behind the fedi I would wager is going to prevent any sort of real technical takeover, so that means that at any point defederating is possible, and with basically no loss to the fedi.
I agree. We could ride the threads train and use it to our advantage. If it ever gets problematic, instances can just defederate at that point.
Shhhhh people are scared here, just go with it if you care about people being mean to you for having a different opinion and/or enjoying something they are afraid of. (Which clearly makes you evil)
could be worse

0.19 allows users themselves to block instances...

- True
Meta is a threat to the platform though.
- They are a threat to humanity as a whole
- So do preemptively defederate when any corporation makes a new instance?

If you don't subscribe to threads you'll never see it.

- Because threads doesn't have communities. All threads people can do it comment.
will i see (negative) culture change
- Undoubtedly.
Great and such, but the large majority that might come to the Fediverse will never look nor use that function. If we don't defederate with our instances now, we never will.
- The thing you don't get is that more common people will find the lemmy servers for the first time. Additionally it is more of a Twitter clone and doesn't threaten much.
*everyone doesn't

There's a list of people that have agreed to block it at https://fedipact.online/

That site is an assault on my eyes.
- Graphic design is my passion.
- Web 1.0 always was a good lookin kid
- The design convinced me to give meta a chance.
Oh jeez how do I turn off all the moving stuff

Short-sighted advice from people who don't understand the purpose of ActivityPub.

- While I'm cool with blocking threads.net, "we should block all corps from the Fediverse" doesn't make sense and that's a bad cause to focus on
  It's fine if an instance wants to make that their policy, the fediverse gives an instance the freedom to do so, but it would provide little gain for a lot of annoyance
  Other bad reasons:
  "Meta can spy on us": they can do that even without threads.net, and federating makes little difference there
- It wasn't a roll-call.
You are free to make your own Mastodon/Lemmy instance and federate with them. Being able to block instances is user choice which absolutely IS the point of ActivityPub. There is no one entity that says you must federate or must defederate.

I hate Zuck and Facebook as much as the next person, but I think the rollout is going slowly enough that we don’t need to fight about it yet.

The discussion is important and needs to be had, but it’s premature.

Everywhere this pops up, the users have decided:
Fuck meta. Fuck threads. Fuck the zuck.
Do not associate. Defederate now
- Just block their domain, no need to take away the freedom of other users even if you hate Meta.
The best case scenario of letting Meta in is neutrality. Far more likely is then actively destroying stuff. Remember, their motto is move fast and break things
- So what are they going to do?
  The whole "Oh they'll microsoft it!"-narrative is clearly false already. As plenty people said the last time someone posted that sensationalist "how to kill the fediverse" (or so) blog post already, this is not about Meta trying to "kill" the fediverse. If anything, the opposite. This is them Mozilla-ing it, using it as a defense against new regulations. They can even point to instances defederating en masse as "See? We tried! They're all blocking us, so it's not our fault this cross-compatibility isn't working." and then in the future use that as a defense against further attempts to open up walled gardens. They tried, the supposedly "open" side actively blocked it, now the other side has to move before they try again.
  People misunderstand the actually extremely obvious reason they're doing this. There's also an easy reason they're dragging their feet so much: They don't want to. But they have to. So they promise they'll federate, actively hope they get blocked (see above), and only actually do it last-second to avoid issues with new legislation.

I can kinda see the point, but also without providing actual reasons, this post just seems like a LARP.

Too bad people on mastodon don't have the ability to block an instance they find objectionable for themselves-- oh wait.

Not sure about Lemmy, but we can do this on mastodon. I don't need someone else deciding for me.

Tldr? Couldn't disagree more

I’m against the defederation. The internet and the www are based on the idea of connection.

That is naive look on it. Meta(Facebook) is a company, it's always company interest and only company interest. The idea of fediverse is to stay out of data tracking, user profiling, not to help it in any way. Connecting with meta is workoing aginst fediverse. It might be a mistake fediverse never recovers from, even now it's really small fedi community.
Why would we as fedi users, mods and admins help meta or any other company, for what, for their interest that they sell on "we love fediverse", "cusotmer first" bla bla bla.
- Imaging for a moment all non-company-mail-servers would block all company-mail-servers (like gmail). Would that be a good idea?
- Idea of Fediverse is to provide decentralized network of social servers connected to each other. Defederation is an optional feature if some instance would go rogue. For now, connecting with Threads is not against Fediverse, it's the opposite. Connecting with Threads fullfills the idea of Fediverse.

By all means, fuck Meta to the moon and back, but for goodness' sake, users on federated servers can choose to block the domain with the same result, not to mention that admins can simply restrict it (see social.coop/@eloquence/1115888…). It just isn't so black and white as people are making it seem.

Federation with a bigger platform is realistically the only way for Fedi to become mainstream, and at the moment Meta seems at least to be trying to be communicative. And with their quite unvaluable userbase they really don't have enough leverage against the privacy-concious Fediverse to turn AP into MetaPub. For now.

You're playing the classic "it's the individual responsability" game. It's how you deregulate everything and the consumer losses every right.
We have to acknowledge that we have systemic or/and societal issues. This is a systemic issues so a common thing.
- I'm just saying that even on federated instances the users can choose to block Threads, and that that gives the same result for them. There's no need to force the hand of the user; there are more than enough corpo-critical people on Fedi for it not to be taken over by Meta.
  Edit: And I understand that allowing interaction with Meta is very risky business. Which is why I like the approach of instances like social.coop which restrict interaction from Threads but still give the user a choice.
But I don't want the fediverse to become mainstream!!
I know, I know, most people think it's the best thing.
But I selfishly prefer the fediverse to be as it is now. Actually, as it was a couple of months ago. Lemmy is already being filled with rage-baiting bullshit, which is one of the reasons I decided to leave reddit.
- I am 100% with you. Becoming mainstream is what ruins most good communities that end up ruined. Hell, even Facebook was a 1000x better before they opened it to non-college users.
- It really depends on the instance. There are many cozy, non-mainstream corners on the Fediverse. For instance, beehaw.org is as pleasant as can be.
So then we shall propose to let them in at our own terms ?
That's quite reasonable to me, and less radical in my humble opinion.
But I also see how one may arrive at such a conclusion, as all parties may not be as welling to accept such terms and conditions, or even be able to make such terms and conditions enforceable.
One instance may accept favours from meta, and then it spreads out uncontrollably... And then ... Its gets more complex.
Perhaps the safest option is to limit their present shares to a maximum of 40% in our servers. That is, they cannot be allowed to have more than a set amount of API exposure to the feeds - and they must allow us to reciprocate, like wise, by being able to have access to theirs by more than 40%. The value of assets can surely be established and estimated par costs of maintenance and OA, etc...

I'd personally at least give them a chance. Defederating is a pretty easy process and can be performed at any point in time. At least some Threads users may as well get to know about Lemmy and switch to it.

Upd: yes I do understand many people don't trust Meta and neither do I. But I also understand lots and lots of users here are using anonymous accounts, and federation information is already public to begin with. Combining the fact that Fediverse may gain more than it may lose, including more users, original content, recognition and etc, I generally think it's worth the risk. I am generally content with any decision, just sharing my two pennies of thought.

Meta has had plenty of chances in the past as a massive leader in the social media market. Those chances have been used to conduct illegal violations of user privacy, monopolize multiple market sectors, and ultimately go as far as actively abetting crimes against humanity. It is entirely reasonable and I think fundamentally imperative not to give them any more chances.
Here's a question that I haven't seen asked of people wanting to give them a chance. What will them federating help the fediverse in any way?
We don't want/ need to be bigger
We have plenty of content if you go to hot and find popular communities you like. So much so, that that they want to come here to use it. They currently don't let any threads users communicate with non-threads users unless you leave the app.
They're an advertising company, are we missing the advertising?
If you have things that they could add in a positive way, feel free to add to this.
"We should give John Wayne Gacy a chance! Sure he's a serial murderer who has stated that he'd keep killing if he weren't under lock and key, but that's no excuse to not invite him to the party!"

Let the user decide. If lemmy/mastodon user wants to block threads, let them. Defederating entirely is idiotic gatekeeping.

Why do you hate user choice so much?

Are we not discussing the choice to defederate? As in most choices, some options are better than others. Sometimes it isn't obvious what the best option is. People discuss and share ideas to make their decision.
We as a community are faced with the choice of whether or not to support threads[.]net. We can think about it individually, or on an instance-by-instance basis - but we can also discuss it collectively. That's whats happening here.
- Defederation is not user choice, it’s decided by the admin of an entire instance.

Aside from the "moral" argument, can someone ELI5 what harm can a federated threads.net do on other users (like me) and/or instances?

the general strategie is called "embrace, extend, extinguish". This strat is the reason, why everyone uses MS Office today
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
- As opposed to Threads stealing all brands companies and users anyway?
  There’s still advantages to a fediverse and ways to defend against “embrace extend extinguish” if you plan ahead.
  We can’t complain about proprietary networks if we don’t allow others to join our own open ones.
- that reminds me of Apple with iMessage
It's not necessarily about a threat to instances or users. It's more an issue with how Meta could potentially hijack the protocol the whole thing is built on, and do damage in the long run. There's a write up here on how similar things have happened in the past;
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
- This is what it's about, right here. I wish more people would understand this. This is not some loose anti-coporate sentiment or senseless alarm sounding. We have example after example of how corporations like Meta, Microsoft, and Google leverage their power to consume and destroy. To say "we just need to be proactive about stopping them" is naive. We've said that so many times, and every time we've lost.
  The only way to win is not to play their game. We can't let them in in the first place.
  Edit: a word
You should look into Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. I think the biggest fear is that they have so many users that they will just flood all instances with their stuff. This can, in time, lead to a situation where they can defederate from everything else and bring a lot of people with them, since most of the content will have come from Threads.
- I feel though that if they were going to do that they should have done that from the beginning. A lot of the other instances now they kind of solidified themselves as big players. It would have been easy to just use Threads at the start but people have put the effort into creating accounts on other platforms now, I can't see them going back what would be the point it would be more of it again.
They can absorb large numbers of users and communities and after a while close themselves to the outside. Meaning that once people "need" those communities they'll have no chance other than go threads.
threads hab more users than fediverse on one instance
is cause centralization
I got a number of answers that sound very weak to me, and basically point to a "fail" of the fediverse in its own nature if threads joins. Kind of disappointing.
To me, the key idea of the fediverse is that it's federated and should work as a whole, no matter who joins. Most of the answers below support the opposite. They are basically saying that the fediverse should stay within the "fediverse", which is exactly what non-federated social media are doing. Meh.

Well, I said before I'll leave any servers that federate with Meta, and it's looking like that time.

Why? This sounds like FUD.

Oddly, this may well be what really spurs on decentralisation. I suspect more and more individuals, or small groups, will spin up their own instances rather than all gravitating to the bigger ones, due to issues like this.

Because, ultimately, the more tech-savvy users (the ones more likely to be into the Fediverse, anyway) will want to decide for themselves what content they do and don't see.

And it's nothing to do with whether or note someone likes/trusts Meta. It's people being able to make their own decisions on what content they want to be able to follow and not have it decided by someone else based on their interests. If someone's friends/family/fandom has a heavy Threads presence, they can spin up their own instance and be able to follow that content themselves without it really affecting anyone else. (and without having to sign up to Threads themselves...)

People are overreacting.

No we're not. Read up on what happened to xmpp. Google joined it, made the service much slower for people not on their servers, everybody joined their servers, they shut their service down for their own proprietary stuff.
Edit: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
- Embrace
  Extend
  Extinguish
- made the service much slower for people not on their server
  I call bullshit. People not using Google servers were unaffected. The problem is people using walled gardens instead of making XMPP compatibility a requirement.
- That doesn't make sense. If Google was making xmpp worse then the servers could just defederate. At this moment threads has not done anything to warrant defederation.
I really don't think that's the case.
This is a nice little place, meta barging in Will fuck it all up
- They aren't barging in. You need to follow the threads user. Only on mastodon are they "barging in".

I'm not too worried about Threads joining the metaverse. What Mark Zuckerberg has failed to realise is just how barebones his Twitter clone is.

Mastodon has support for trending topics and hashtags. Threads doesn't. Lacking such an absolutely basic feature that any microblogging platform would otherwise support is why Threads dropped from 500M active users to just a fraction of it.

I joined it near launch, made a few posts and then stopped. There is nothing worthwhile on Threads and I don't think leeching on to the fediverse.

Also, I can kinda understand why you all rushed to defederate from Gab when they tried to jump on the federation bandwagon, but not Meta.

Zuckerberg doesn't need us to overtake X. He needs to actually make a functional social media app first, then put more resources into moderating it.

X is still on top despite Elon Musk's stewardship because his competitors are either too small (most federated instances), require too big of a technical hurdle for the average Joe to use (the fediverse in general), or are downright incompetent (Threads.)

And another attempt at blanket hating on a platform for no reason. Be more original, people.

Edit: if YOU don't like it, sure block it. But don't force your backwards decision on everyone else.

If Kbin defederates from Threads, I'll just leave Kbin, and stay with Threads. Defederating over vibes is not how the fediverse is supposed to operate. And for everyone advocating for this dumb idea, I'm just using this thread as a honey pot.

I’m pretty clear that meta has more problems than “vibes”.
No, the entire point is that you're free to go to whatever instance you want and/or host your own with your own rules. You're more than welcome to go to one that doesn't defederate, just as every instance owner/admins are free to defederate. It's not how "the fediverse is supposed to operate" because a standard for how the fediverse is supposed to operate doesn't exist.
fediverse isn't supposed to have most users concentrated in one instance also
Once they can interact with your account, they can pull your data into their server and analyzing it to deliver ads campaign.
- They can already do this by hosting a small instance and going unnoticed.
- How would they get the data? Federation doesn’t mean that they will get full access to your account.
Please let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
Bye felicia.

@mypasswordis1234 I mean, what is the point in defederating while being in a Lemmy instance? You cannot interact with microblog while using #Lemmy. The only thing that comes to my mind is that threads users will not be able to comment on a lemmy post or comment, but let's be honest, the way communities will probably federate to #threads (the same way it is today with mastodon) is not good, thus reducing the amount of attraction a lemmy post can get over there.

For some weird reason in the implementation of the AP protocol, lemmy posts are seems as just a link on mastodon, the replies are complete though. If someone understand this better and wants to explain, feel free to do it.

For some weird reason in the implementation of the AP protocol, lemmy posts are seems as just a link on mastodon, the replies are complete though.
ActivityPub allows two post formats, Notes and Articles. Articles support titles and therefore posts on Lemmy and threads on /kbin use them, while notes do not and are therefore used for microblogging and commenting. Currently Mastodon's article federation only goes so far as linking the post for content, and to be honest I'm doubtful whether Threads will federate Articles at all given their carefulness with federation.

Is threads.net going to hit the top of "most defederated" list? People hate it even more than gab and truthsocial.

Best part of it is - it's all paranoia. Fediverse will never get a sensible percentage of people if everything new gets blocked for no reason, or "because they'll destroy Fediverse".
- Yep.
  But I gotta admit watching all these old cis straight white dudes get terrified of social media is at least quite entertaining!

I guess those nonstop arguments about Palestine and Israel will creep over if we don't defederate Threads. That is literally all I ever see in there nowadays.

What's next? Discord federates with Matrix? Give me a break.

That's a large portion of what's here as well though...
- Oh right.
And you don't see that on lemmy? It's everywhere. Well maybe less so actual arguments and more just 100% anti Israel.
- What you described is what I see on Lemmy, not actual arguments.
Discord federates with Matrix?
Yes please. I’d love to be able to communicate with Discord users without having to use Discord.
I'd love it if Discord federated with Matrix. Then I wouldn't have to try to convince my friends to use matrix. Which I don't, which is why I seldomly use matrix.

I think we should let meta federated to the fediverse until they try to influence it or integrate ads in posts or something else that can hurt the fediverse

- So that we can be too late to do anything now.
Yeah I'm with you on this. I'm skeptical their intentions might be yet again concerning but I'm down for more global adoption of p2p

That's the face you make when the hamster in your ass sneezes.
- That is beyond offensive. As a butthole hamster shover upper, I refuse to be brought down to Zuck's level, there aint no way possible we ( hamster asshole stuffers) should be dragged through the mud and besmirch our good name. Let the robot lizard people keep him. Harumph...

I want a server where users can make these decisions for themselves.

Fuck this mob-mentality spurred upon by losers.

No I don't think I will

I highly recommend using Boost for Lemmy for mobile use. One simple reason at the moment (there are many): it has a tagging feature that allows you to display text next to a user's handle. ITT there are 4-5 users I've tagged as centrist or right wing trolls and they are all the fuck over the thread, arguing in favor of Facebook being a part of the fediverse. This does not surprise me in the least, but at least the tagging helps me immediately identify the shitbirds making bad faith arguments so I can easily ignore their garbage opinions.

Honest discourse for the purpose of highlighting any possible issues and fortifying against the EEE process. (Prepare for war; hope for peace):

Let's say they were able to join... (We should at the very least go over this possibility, as it can also help our admins decide.) How would we be able to protect our network?

Would making sure any features of one instance/app be open and able to be modified and/or gracefully integrated into another be an option? (similar to the GPL license) An example would be keeping a party from restricting access to a private network only through their app. (looking at you, gTalk and iMessage)

Any other suggestions?

similar to the GPL license
It's already AGPL, which indeed is, similar to GPL lol.
- I thought AGPL only makes sure that a modification from the original must be released, and doesn't cover new unmodified software that would connect to a server.
  A company like meta could easily design their own product from scratch that would also have it's own network and just a simple plugin that can communicate with the fediverse. Wouldn't this could be a way for them to skirt around sec. 13 of the AGPL.

Could threads generate so much data that it costs to much to keep an instance/server running?

In my opinion all big player are just federating to destroy the fediverse or take it over. Why else would they be here? There is just no need for them to be here exept to kill competition before it gets to big.

no one cares if you leave. literally no one.

I haven't defederated anyone yet, I don't intend to defederated from Instagrams new failed Twitter clone.

"Everyone everywhere should federate."

"Not like that!"

lemmy.world and by extension mastodon.world is probably still waiting to see what happens. The other instance I have my account on has a rather hands-off approach to moderation soooo I hope there's some way for a user to block an instance on their own.

~~Next~~ This version of Lemmy
- It actually just released yesterday!
- How does one block an instance as a user in Lemmy? I'm not seeing it, but if it only dropped today maybe the version hasn't spread far and wide yet.

Nope, just ban threads and anything to do with facebook. All servers will defederate Facebook.

Nah

Then just use a different server? Facebook has an agenda too and the rest of us would prefer an occasional break from it.
You personally don't "need" to do anything but decide which server meets your own standards. We are currently discussing this server's standards.

Dumb argument is dumb. We need to defederate the internet! LAN not WAN!

Better yet, let them enjoy the full connectivity for a month. Once they've enjoyed all the awesome content and got used to it - defederate.

I don't like Meta, but that's far from the worst corporate rights record. I say wait and see how it turns out first.

If I don't like it I won't look at it, simple as.

@tedvdb@feddit.nl Hey :)

I'm all for defederating, but only until we know what their intentions are. I'm more worried about Mastodon than Lemmy, but still, that's not the point. The only power any of us have is to file an official complaint with the FTC and make a distinct point, not just "I hate meta/Facebook and want them to go away" it has to be a logical complaint such as "their terms of service are overstepping their boundaries and taking ownership of data on competing platforms that they do not own to lock out competitors." It's really the only thing anyone in the US can do.

I would hate for the fediverse to die by zuck the cuck's hand, but the sad truth is open source is the enemy of corporate platforms, and it's encouraging enough that ActivityPub is enough of a threat to Meta that they're willing to go to these measures to make sure their bottom line isn't harmed. The real fucked up thing is their intention to farm other platforms users with their consent and that's the real problem.

Sadly i dsagree with you, nobary cares about this peace of junk (seriously, microblog without hashtags?). Also i think is fedverse is a great place in general and i trust in all instances moderators, and any bot or think like this have interesting in us. I don;t worry about, for me is one more day with meta bulshit, thatś it

Because Facebook is the posterchild for anticompetitive evil corporations.
They're doing this because it will help them monopolize more content or more users. By nature, that will be harmful to the fediverse.
Maybe read abeut the EEE strategy (embrace, extend, extinguish). Gatekeeping is bad but this isn't about gatekeeping

For default, they are unfederated in threads.

Also, are you sure you want the mass don't know what the federated web is? We are a low number of users. If we want to me the new standard of internet, we need the people to know what de Fediverse is. And threads can be that first door, and then they can start to spread to other more suitable stances.

I just want to extend the conversation.

For default, they are unfederated in threads.
Do you mean instances have just all unfederated or that it's built into Lemmy itself?
I haven't heard anything on threads in a while so I'm not sure how well it took off but I agree that having something like threads could bring in more users.
Honestly I like the vibe of Lemmy and the fediverse now but I definitely do miss how there was a community for everything.
- A friend of mine made a threads account, and for his account being federated, the need to search in the settings a box of "Want your account to access the fediverse?" and the default is off

Why not just let them choose instead of trying to get users to brigade them? Personally I want my insurance federated with Threads.

I can see that threads.net may harm the Fediverse. But, there might be some people that don't like the threads client and want to use the fediverse to interact with them. This will divide us. Also, trying to have a standard were threads.net is blocked is very hard to spread. Maybe has to be default on the server side, or even better, a subscription.

Lol no. That said, I'm on Threads too so whatevs.

they are

This is the way.

Better yet, I'll request the admin specifically to federate with Threads, so that I can move across the stuff that I care about to mbin from the Threads app.

The preemptive strike is interesting. The cost will be a lack of knowledge. We know our enemy but we don't know them on this terrain yet.