Would an instance be able to unfederate Facebook/ meta.
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
89 points (91.6% liked)
Technology
34429 readers
184 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes. Many are doing so preemptively.
You can't do that preemptively when you don't know what their instance names are going to be.
Everyone’s account has threads.net highlighted in the profile, so it’s not a huge stretch.
Spreading this around when I can. Here's how you can personally block threads.net:
https://mastodon.social/@[email protected]/110663465300686570
Why wouldn't they be able to?
I am just starting to get used to this federated stuff, adding to my concepts as I go.
Yes, and many are doing it
Meta can do whatever they want with Threads, in the exact same way that mastodon.social is it's own independent instance and can do as it pleases.
If Mastodon users want to follow or even see content on Threads, it's entirely optional, depending on your current instance's stance. You can always move to another instance that shares your views (and there will be plenty that do) and has defederated from Threads, or you could roll your own instance and be in control of what instances you interact/federate with for yourself.
Exactly, I would just join an instance that defederates from threads.
"Ragefarming" and "algorithmically filtering for rage" just means sorting by thread activity. Mastodon already does this.
It is possible to have an active discussion in a civil tone. What they promote is conflict, that is not the same as activity.
Mastodon is a bubble. You have primarily highly educated, tech-literate nerds on that platform.
Obviously people are more civil and polite there, than some raging uneducated losers and trolls on facebook.
As the fediverse grows, the userbase will obviously lose this current isolated tech-wizard school vibe, and feel more like going into a random pub in a big city. Regardless if Meta joins the fediverse or not.
Does it? Facebook can determine things like political leanings of people, as well as the likelyhood of particular content to trigger rage response. The result looks different for different people. Everyone's feed is different and tailored for inducing response from them.
When I used Facebook a few years ago, my feed was mostly memes, ads and personal posts from friends and family.
Maybe I never got the ragebait political stuff, because everyone in my friend circle wasn't keen on being the sad guy that publicly yells at clouds on facebook.
Popular hashtags on Twitter and to some extend even on Mastodon, just makes you feel bad for the mental health of these perma-raging users tho.
Political spaces in general on every social platform are just magnets for misery.
Would any instance that found a user to be problematic be able to ban that user?
fb will be doing things at such a massive scale that this would be too much work
Here I am assuming they would show up as users when FB's version shows up as an instance and can be delt with on that level. I am just starting to get used to this federated stuff.
view more: next ›