Threads spotted exploring ads, but says 'no immediate timeline' toward monetization
Threads spotted exploring ads, but says 'no immediate timeline' toward monetization
These findings indicate that Threads engineers are exploring ad technology, but that doesn't mean Threads will debut ads anytime soon, as some suspect.
You're viewing a single thread.
And this is why it’s not a good idea to federate with Threads.
On the contrary, that's how you get an ad-free access to Threads content.
Interesting that you think that I may be interested in Threads content.
Interesting that you think that I may be interested in Threads content.
I'm not interested in what content you are interested in. You (Edit: Not even you, gravitas_deficiency. Why even interject as if you were the person I replied to?) made a comment regarding blocking Threads content for everyone. Let everyone decide for themselves which accounts to follow, don't promote not to federate at all just because you personally don't want to follow accounts there. Just don't click the follow button, duh.
Go to some junk instance that's willing to federate if you want.
Federating with Threads makes an instance unacceptable as far as most of us are concerned. Their mere existence is malignant.
Go to some junk instance that’s willing to federate if you want.
The Mastodon instance I use already does and absolutely nothing negatively happened to it. Mastodon users can just block entire instances on their own if they happen to not like any content from there.
Federating with Threads makes an instance unacceptable as far as most of us are concerned. Their mere existence is malignant.
That's based on conspiracy theories and not an actually informed decision based on how the Fediverse works. Most of you don't even understand that Threads content wouldn't even show up on Lemmy in the first place. Threads doesn't even have communities.
Because Facebook hasn't done anything yet.
Blocking Facebook as a user is not good enough. Any server that connects to them legitimizes them and is not acceptable behavior.
It absolute is not a conspiracy, and most people unwilling to participate in any server that interacts with Facebook in any way are doing so exactly because they understand the technology and Facebook's history. Literally everything Facebook has ever touched turned to dogshit. "I won't participate in a platform that doesn't completely block Facebook" is not the naive, uninformed position. (That's using Facebook and their other platforms.) It's the people who recognize how pure fucking evil Facebook is.
Because Facebook hasn’t done anything yet.
And they cannot circumvent to ActivityPub protocol to display ads to users who don't want so see them. Claiming otherwise is conspiracy theories.
Blocking Facebook as a user is not good enough
Yes, it is.
Any server that connects to them legitimizes them and is not acceptable behavior.
That's not for you to decide.
It absolute is not a conspiracy
It absolutely is.
and most people unwilling to participate in any server that interacts with Facebook in any way
First: That's untrue.
Second: Such an opinion is based on conspiracy theories and therefore not valid.
are doing so exactly because they understand the technology
No, they and you don't.
“I won’t participate in a platform that doesn’t completely block Facebook” is not the naive, uninformed position.
Yes, it is and you don't even realize that you are participatin in a platform that doesn’t completely block
FacebookThreads right now. That's proof enough that you don't understand the technology.It’s the people who recognize how pure fucking evil Facebook is.
Then allowing ad-free access to accounts hosted there should be your agenda. That's how they don't get money, not by pushing people to sign up for their platform, just because they want to follow their favorite movie franchise or sports team.
Yes, it is and you don’t even realize that you are participatin in a platform that doesn’t completely block Facebook Threads right now. That’s proof enough that you don’t understand the technology.
https://sh.itjust.works/instances lists threads.net under the blocked instances list, not everyone is using lemmy.world. Inform yourself before accusing others of making uninformed statements.
https://sh.itjust.works/instances lists threads.net under the blocked instances list, not everyone is using lemmy.world. Inform yourself before accusing others of making uninformed statements.
But you're in an lemmy.word-hosted community right now, interacting with me who has a LW account, so you're participating on a platform that's federating with Threads. That's like claiming not to participate with anything Google while mailing these claims to GMail addresses. You're participating. You just don't know how ActivityPub works and that's why you think that being on any Fediverse server that didn't explicitly block Threads would result in sposored posts from Threads magically showing up. You're a conspiracy theorist.
You very obviously do not understand how the blocklist works so here's a very practical example:
ani.social is blocked by lemmy.ml.
Here is a post on lemmy.world containing comments by users from ani.social: https://lemmy.world/post/18538115
Here is that same post on lemmy.ml, which has blocked ani.social: https://lemmy.ml/post/19043133
Note the absence of any comment made by a user on ani.social. As far as users on lemmy.ml are concerned ani.social does not exist (as of 10 months ago, some existing content before then can still be viewed). I think you don't know how ActivityPub works and calling me a conspiracy theorist won't change that.
yes, it is
It absolutely is
No, they and you don't
What great arguments you have. Really gonna convince people with that.
What great arguments you have.
Yes, I have, you just chose not to quote any of them. Threads cannot push ads to Mastodon users who don't want to see them. Mastoton users can subscribe to brand accounts who then may make promotional posts but again: Threads cannot push any of those to users as ads. That's simply not how ActivityPub works. I explained this countless times already. Certain people just aren't interested in facts and choose to quote selectively as if those arguments were never made. That's dishonest.
I'm not interested in what content you are interested in.
Yes, this is the kind of thing a terminally boring person says.
Pardon my generalization, but literally no one is interested in threads
I follow many Threads accounts.
/literally one more than no one
Most people want social media to read and talk about the mundane things that are interesting to them (like sports, or their hobbies, or some new cool bar they want to go on, or some interesting places to travel) instead of using it to doomscroll and display outrage.
If all you want from social media is a place that constantly keeps you anxious and reminds you of how little power you have to change the things you are so pointless worrying about... then sure, Lemmy is more than enough as it is.
Most people want social media to read and talk about the mundane things that are interesting to them (like sports, or their hobbies, or some new cool bar they want to go on, or some interesting places to travel)...
Hey, more evidence that most people aren't worth talking to, nice.
You were so eager to come up with a jab at other people that you seem to have ignored the second paragraph. It is pretty clear that you could benefit from a bit of introspection to look what you could offer to the world, instead of just trying to put everyone down.
Wishing you well.
There are myriad reasons not to federate with Threads.
Ads don't federate.
bold of you to assume that ads won't just be disguised as regular posts (and therefore federate)
Edit: after reading the article I heavily suspect ads will federate. As is they are just specially marked posts so I see no reason to think they won't federate.
My instance is defederated from threads. At the time I mildly disagreed with that decision. Federated ads would vindicate that decision. I don't need threads content that badly.
I don’t need threads content that badly.
You can block entire servers yourself. No need for an instance to defederate.
Yes and this was my reasoning for saying it would be fine to federate. But I'll point out that federating ads would mean using my server's infrastructure to serve ads on behalf of someone else. That would cost the admin more money and would require more user donations to keep it going. So just being able to block isn't the necessary solution. Not sure that was even your point but I wanted to bring it up.
But I’ll point out that federating ads would mean using my server’s infrastructure to serve ads on behalf of someone else.
Marvel Comics could make an account on any Mastodon server and make posts to promote an upcoming movie. That's a regular post, containing promotional material. What makes it an ad (or a sponsored post) in IG/Threads terms is to push such posts to users via targeting algorithms who didn't subscribe to Marvel Comics. Threads cannot do that via ActivityPub, so your Mastodon server cannot serve Threads ads.
Okay. Well I'm not that worried until I see where things are headed. I can see a lot of ways for things to go badly, but no point in borrowing trouble over it.
“Borrowing trouble” is a great phrase :D
No, not bold. You don't get posts from accounts you don't follow.
Creating ads as if they are from a person would get Threads instabanned in the EU.
The example shown literally is a regular post simply marked "Sponsored" so it can be assumed that post would federate just like any other post. The only difference being the Sponsor marker likely being a Threads exclusive ActivityPub extension so unless other platforms implement that the post would show up as a regular post on e.g. Mastodon.
Them being in compliance with EU regulations while simultaneously blasting their ads into the Fediverse are not mutually exclusive. There are ways for them to do both. And to be fair here if the ads get federated they will likely be marked as such in some way so other Fediverse platforms should be able to filter the ads out easily.
The example shown literally is a regular post simply marked “Sponsored” so it can be assumed that post would federate just like any other post.
Instagram shows its users sponsored posts from accounts you don't follow. Threads will do the same for users of its website and apps. These posts will not magically show up on Mastodon from accounts one doesn't follow. If a Mastodon user would follow the profile of a brand, they'd get the posts from that account that would obviously contain promotion (just as any brand is free to join Mastodon right now and promote products there) but as @troed 100% correctly wrote: You don’t get posts from accounts you don’t follow.
Are you aware that a global feed exists on Mastodon?
Are you aware that a global feed exists on Mastodon?
No need for admins to defederate and take away the decision from grownups. Learn how Mastodon works instead of being hysteric because you believe unfounded conspiracy theories.
No need for admins at all, just have the users keep the place clean entirely by themselves, I'm sure that will work wonders /s. Let's not worry about people browsing the instance before making an account by which they could block such content. That's such a silly idea, who'd ever want to do that. No instead let's make it so the entire thing is only usable with an account... wait I've seen that somewhere else before.
As for me being "hysteric" about an unfounded "conspiracy theory" I'm not, as is this "feature" is not implemented and if you could read you would have spotted me being pretty clear about this likely being a nothing burger all the way at the start of the conversation. Here's the quote since you apparently missed it:
And to be fair here if the ads get federated they will likely be marked as such in some way so other Fediverse platforms should be able to filter the ads out easily.
At the very beginning this was simply a discussion about the potential impacts of this "feature" threads wants to implement. The people coming in here completely naive and blind to any potential outcome to this other than "sunshine and rainbows" are you guys. I'm not saying Threads will push ads into the fediverse. I'm not even claiming they would do it in a malicious manner. I was simply refuting the claim that it could not happen. And despite your claim I am familiar enough with mastodon to know that can happen via tag relays at the very least.
For someone calling others uninformed about the fediverse I am astonished how uniformed you are about it yourself. I am by no means deeply familiar with the activitypub protocol or the fediverse despite running an instance but I know enough about it that I can say with absolute certainty that ads could and would find their way to the fediverse. Would that be somehow novel and new? No, relays are a known factor and by their very nature they do not filter out unwanted content. When an admin subscribes to a tag or instance relay they get all the content from that relay not only the stuff they want. As such ads would not be much different from a regular post made by a company. I never claimed such anyway. I only claimed if Threads made ads federate (if then most certainly with a marker that it is an ad for compliance reasons) they would end up in the global feeds unless the platform backends implement whatever mechanisms Threads would use to mark those ads in the activitypub data. I see no reason provided so far to discredit that possibilty. Learn to differentiate between hysteria and reasonable discussion before making wild accusations next time.
The Facebook code that outputs to fediverse using activity pub can put any posts it likes into that feed, because it's not mastodon it's custom and can absolutely inject ads.
You don't get posts from accounts you don't follow. My server's global feed only includes posts from accounts people on my server follow.
Just claiming "it will" is not a counter argument. That's not how the protocol works.
That's why they have stealth enshittification techniques to disguise them.
That’s why they have stealth enshittification techniques to disguise them.
Promotional posts don't magically show up on Mastodon for users who don't follow the brand account that posted them. That's not how Mastodon works.
If I were to follow Marvel Comics via Mastodon, boosted a post, then my followers would see the post, just as they would see the post if I made a screenshot from a Marvel tweet and posted that to Mastodon but Marvel posts would not just show up for random Mastodon users just because Marvel paid Meta to promote a post on Threads. Only Threads website and app users would see such posts.
It's amazing how uninformed Fediverse users are of the basics of how the Fediverse works.
Yeah, I don't really understand how you are getting downvoted for saying this in various comments.
Are people actually worried they would would see straight up ads coming into their mastodon feeds if their server federates with Threads? That's a pretty wild assumption to make.
If you follow the Coke brand account, then you'll see Coke brand posts (even then I wouldn't consider those "ads" in a traditional sense), but if you follow MBKHD or, hell, the Barack Obama account you won't have a sudden influx of ads for Pepsi or whatever in your feed.
Are people actually worried they would would see straight up ads coming into their mastodon feeds if their server federates with Threads? That’s a pretty wild assumption to make.
Not only are they worried, they think that this is a foregone conclusion. They think it's more important to block Threads preemptively than to actually make an informed decision ... looking if Meta would actually somehow misuse federation and then block them, should that happen. I've seen Lemmy instances block Threads before they block any neo-nazi and pedo instances. Seriously, WTF. The hysteria is insane. Threads content can't currently even show up on Lemmy.