Submitted 3 weeks ago by Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com to fediverse@lemmy.world
In reviewing the Fedipact page, I noticed the message about Threads having moved to threads.com nearly a year ago. In reviewing federation status with the Federation Checker tool, I noticed that most Lemmy instances don’t appear to have added threads.com to their defederation lists. Is Threads able to federate with other Fediverse instances using its new domain?
Yes, as long as it’s not blocked, it can federate just like any other software.
Isn’t blocking one way? So you can block threads but threads will still receive your content?
By block I meant defederate, as described in my post, rather than a user-level block. Just clarified the title; apologies for the confusion.
That depends on whether the software allows it; Mastodon uses the AUTHORIZED_FETCH variable for this. If it’s active, blocked instances can no longer fetch posts via AP.
Threads doesn’t work with Lemmy/Piefed. Their ActivityPub implementation only targets Mastodon.
Also, instances that defederate from Threads but not Truth Social are a joke.
seems to me that one way federation is the right answer/solution. Let fediverse users retreive threads content, but dont serve up fediverse content to help meta keep threads users locked in.
I feel it’s better to not receive Threads content altogether, or severely limit it. What if Threads tries to overload us wirh a lot of it?
rimu@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
It doesn’t matter, Threads has crippled their ActivityPub implementation so badly that I’ve never once seen a post from a threads user. Meta gave up on the idea, effectively.
Ulrich@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
I don’t know that they crippled anything. I still regularly see posts from a few users. The problem is that they just half-assed it. It’s unidirectional. So you can see and reply to their posts but they can’t do anything back. They can’t follow you or reply to anything. It’s also opt-in, and almost no one cared enough to do that.
hector@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
That is definitely it, they made it technically possible to say they are competitive and not a trust, and then sabotaged it so it’s actually not workable. As our regulators and courts are captured that obvious slight of hand is enough of an excuse for the authorities to pretend to believe them.
JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
From their perspective: not enough users to be worth the bother.
4am@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Why federate when you can just scrape and avoid the controversy
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Pikachuface.jpg