this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
73 points (90.1% liked)

Fediverse

17724 readers
3 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
deadsuperhero@lemmy.ml
wakest@lemmy.ml
73
Erik Moeller on Mastodon: There's a common false dichotomy about Threads [...] (nerdica.net)
submitted 11 months ago by masimatutu@nerdica.net to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

There's a common false dichotomy about #Threads: cut them off, or leave it to user choice.

I can't speak to other software, but Mastodon offers a third option: limiting Threads. This can be done for all users of a server.

- You can follow Threads accounts after clicking through a warning.

- People who don't follow those same people won't see their posts.

- You have to manually approve followers _from_ Threads.

Basically, it puts Threads in quarantine, without cutting off all connections.

I like that option for our server, social.coop, and it's the one we voted to implement earlier this year.

We know that Threads already hosts bad actors (e.g., LibsOfTikTok). We know some reasonable folks have set up shop there and will continue to flee there from X.

This option makes it clear that Threads is not a safe space, while allowing limited connections.

Every instance will implement the option that makes sense to them, of course.

social.coop/@eloquence/1115888…

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 38 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

Can anyone help me understand what any Mastodon instance can possibly stand to gain by federating with Threads? The size disparity is absolutely massive. Anything going to Threads will be lost like a drop in the ocean and anything coming from Threads will be a deluge that drowns anything on Mastodon. You can limit your instance to only one of these but it's still bad.

Following Threads posters from a Mastodon client sounds ok at first, your users can get lots of Threads content, they get accustomed to it, and one day Meta changes the protocol and now you have to decide if you're a Mastodon or a Threads client. Or your users start wondering why they're using a subpar Threads client when most of their content is on there.

[–] masimatutu@nerdica.net 18 points 11 months ago (5 children)

It actually isn't that big. It grew a lot initially because people on Instagram were practically forced to join (or so I've heard), but then activity died down very quickly (www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/tech/th…).

I'd say the ability to interact with the high-profile accounts on threads via Masto makes it a much more attractive alternative for many, although I personally have no interest in doing so.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I’d say the ability to interact with the high-profile accounts on threads via Masto makes it a much more attractive alternative for many, although I personally have no interest in doing so.

I'd rather we deliberately boycott high-profile accounts until they come to their senses and move to Mastodon.

[–] masimatutu@nerdica.net 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, say that to Biden...

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

They ought to set up a mastodon.gov server for federal officials like Biden to post on.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

… do you actually get your news from social media?

[–] masimatutu@nerdica.net 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

No, why? I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of accounts that a lot of people want to follow who are very unlikely to ever move to non-corporate social media.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)