Tim Chambers
So #Threads is in the early stages of testing Federation. As we do with any new Fediverse server, we welcome them to the neighborhood but also will not hesitate to take moderating action if needed at any scale appropriate.
Blocking them en masse as a "first strike" is, in our view, fundamentally unwise for the larger goals of the open social web.
Read more on this strategy here: https://www.timothychambers.net/2023/06/23/project-and-the.html
Tim Chambers
@haui see my article I link to above.
haui
Am I missing something or is threads the legal way for zuck to suck all our data out of the fediverse and sell our 5 million faces to his ad customers?
Ulrich_the_Elder
@tchambers @fediversenews As long as I can block the entire lot I approve.
HistoPol (#HP) 🥥 🌴
Yes, you can. Takes about 10-15 min.
Did so in early July, then wrote this summary:
https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/110661216855577004
@tchambers @fediversenews
Tim Chambers
@tommi ✊
Tommi 🤯
Pan is going to follow the same strategy.
Tim Chambers
@reflex @fediversenews They have said that their own Trust and Safety teams apply to ALL Threads content and have said that they have linked their third party fact checking services into Threads.
David Fleetwood - RG Admin
@tchambers @fediversenews Has Threads announced a moderation policy and made moderators available? That's a basic requirement for most fediverse instances. Who do we complain to? Or are we supposed to play whack a mole with a hundred million users?
Tim Chambers
@reflex @fediversenews I would say this: we should judge this like any other Fediverse server. And thus far they have said they will do a moderation policy akin to or better than most Fediverse servers now. Then we see how well they do at this, like we do any Fediverse server.
David Fleetwood - RG Admin
@tchambers @fediversenews Hasn't it proven woefully inadequate to date? And they explicitly stated fact checking on political posts won't be a thing.
They have a large network that is mostly dead. We have a smaller network that is very active. I feel like we should be making the demands here.
Tim Chambers
@reflex How I'd treat *any* server: if i disagreed with them banning several accounts - but did see them removed many posts from said accounts - but I felt like they were making a good enough effort overall - I would fediblock those specfic accounts, but not the whole server.
Fediblocking in my book is a nuclear option only meant for servers that have moderation policy akin to Gab or TruthSocial or worse.
David Fleetwood - RG Admin
@tchambers @fediversenews Have these accounts been removed? If they haven't then Threads has already failed to meet the standards of the vast majority of AP servers...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meta-threads-app-positive-vibe-204259604.html
(honest question, I don't know if they cleaned it up or not, I don't have access to Threads)
Jon
@tchambers I think this cuts to the core of different reactions in two ways:
1) different instances have different philosophies over whether to block an instance that doesn't remove accounts of known bad actors
2) opinions differ on whether Meta is making a "good enough" effort overall.
Underlying this is the problem that without better tools, safety on the fediverse really relies today on instance blocking -- which has downsides but at least exists.
https://privacy.thenexus.today/unsafe-by-design-and-unsafe-by-default/
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.