But also, I don't want my content appearing on Zuckerberg's platform, even if it does support two-way federation in the future. I can't actually stop them from scraping it, of course, but by blocking them, I can at least put them on notice that they are not welcome.
argv_minus_one@mstdn.party 5 months ago
Defederating #Threads will, however, stop Threads from drowning out the entire rest of the Fediverse.
The result of federating is that Threads *is* the Fediverse now, and the rest of us are just the silent periphery that no one cares about and aren't even allowed to speak to Threads users (the federation is one-way). This kills the Fediverse. Easiest #EmbraceExtendExtinguish ever.
argv_minus_one@mstdn.party 5 months ago
atomicpoet@atomicpoet.org 5 months ago
@argv_minus_one If you have moral reasons for blocking Threads, that’s okay. But I’m addressing people who believe de-federation prevents scraping.
Misinformation is the problem here, not your feelings about Threads.
shellsharks@shellsharks.social 5 months ago
@argv_minus_one @atomicpoet Thanks to our feeds here being follower-defined and not "algorithmic”, I don't see how Threads posts (and thus Threads itself) could drown out my feed or anyone else's feed unless they consciously decide to overwhelmingly follow Threads accounts. Plus, since we have access to Threads posts (for now) and not the other way around, this in some ways gives us *MORE* capability than those natively on Threads.
shellsharks@shellsharks.social 5 months ago
@argv_minus_one @atomicpoet I think Threads can play in the Fediverse sandbox without the intention of destroying traditional Fedi. I’m not saying they don't have the same surveillance capitalist goals for first-party users of their own platform but I think there are good reasons for them to enable AP support beyond trying to crush us or harvest our data.