Lemmy Moderators

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?

Dude, I'm sure you've used Facebook before. Facebook comments are cancer.

Better keep them far, far away.

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'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.net instead 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 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.

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.

Threads wont allow that. I would guess Threads will try to monetize in the fediverse.

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?