A community index of servers added a new rule recently, that requires every participant to defederate from Threads. Some admins are unhappy.
Server indexes of places for newcomers to join can be instrumental for Fediverse adoption. However, sudden rule changes can leave some admins feeling pressure to change policies in order to remain listed.
any other instance allowing all the racist, homophobic and transphobic shit that gets posted on Threads would be unanimously defederated by the biggest players on the Fediverse, and blasted all over the network under the fediblock hashtag, but Meta somehow gets the pass because... more number mean gooder?
all i see on mine (i just tried it this week) is cute videos, artist videos, life hack videos, and amazing videos. seriously. it’s a lot like discuit. i guess it’s all in what you follow.
I get this argument... but I keep seeing folks talk about Threads as if it's somehow an existential threat to Mastodon rather than "big crappy instance with asshats on it," and I don't quite understand how it's more than that... at least at a level that users and instance admins have any influence over. Can someone ELI5?
It's because Facebook has been pushing their PR saying "We're not an alt-right cesspit, we don't tolerate alt-right trolling" people including right wingers believe them and repeat these lies, then they proceed to turn a blind eye towards right wing trolling and bigotry because they know that most of their audience are right wingers themselves (I mean that should be obvious since Facebook is known as the boomer platform because all the young people left elsewhere).
That is the stupidest arguement I've seen in a while. " my grandad smoked 3 packs a day and never got cancer so cancer is just a hoax by big pharma!" Anecdotes aren't accepted as evidence for good reason.
Yeah, I've never even heard of them before now and would have no particular reason to trust that what they mean by "good" servers aligns with what I'd consider "good" servers. This isn't like joinmastodon.org trying to strongarm instances to adopt their personal federation policy.
They are not threatening the fediverst though are they? Just refusing to promote certain instances for newcomers. When I signed up, i wasn't really sure what I was signing up to but i did assume that not all instances were listed on that page that talked about them
Little dictators that have too much prominence and visibility are the threats. If a specific start point gets too prominent a lot of users could be redirected from good instances because of the little tyrants that run such a jump on point. Granted it can be easily routes around by offering alternative entry points, but a certain amount of prominence will impact not so Tech savvy users.
And in your assumption you have shown you already understand the fediverse more than a lot of people ever will. They will just join an instance and browse /ALL.
The above is the core strength of the fediverse. Tinpot despots may have an advantage in the network due to previous efforts, but they can be routed around any time they go nuts.
This is a huge, huge win over the top down shitbergs that is current corporate social media.
I am not in favor of transitive property defederation either but Meta will make similar demands if they are allowed to be an influencer in the fedi as well. I’d rather that everyone just decides to defederate threads independently
Are any major Lemmy or Mastodon instances in Fedi Garden?
I was looking through the site and didn't see any instances I recognized but they also nest everything so it takes like 3 clicks to see 2 severs.
Edit: By type looks like the easier way to see the entire list, which is not huge and I don't recognize any of the servers but I will admit I am not a big Mastodon person.
It's funny how they can attack a software and all instances on it but turn a blind eye to the wrongdoings of the developers of the software they're using. It shows a lot of very personal and emotional bias, and also quite a bit of hypocrisy because they are basically saying to all the instances that use Lemmy that one can't use server software without agreeing with the developers, and yet they use Mastodon while fundamentally disagreeing with its developers.
I think this is consistent with their content policy aims, so that's fine. Meta will not easily ban Nazis, so I get where they're coming from. I don't think I personally would want to participate in this project if I was an admin though.
How exactly is anyone being strong armed?
A single, privately run index site (which, to be clear, I have never even visited, let alone have any affiliation with) doesn't want to publicise certain instances.
If anything, forcing them to index instances they don't want to would be the strong-arming.
Yeah saying they have to list and recommend things they disagree with reeks highly of "freeze peach" principles as understood by right-wing-philosopher-clowns.
The nature of the fediverse is that it's federative/defederative. If an instance chooses to defederate because it thinks federation is a risk then they can do that. If that causes a problem for a user, the user can move to another instance which does federate.
I joined the fediverse after years of bad experiences on more typical social media sites, and specifically lemmy.blahaj.zone instance because the admins are very good at weeding out transphobia. If they federated with Threads I would be very surprised and want them to convince me of why that was a good idea.
No, you're misunderstanding the nature of the Fediverse. The fediverse concept centers around independent servers interconnecting and communicating with each other over activitypub, not all servers everywhere, just simply independent servers (AKA there is room for defederation and bans in that model). There will be servers which choose not to or won't be allowed to interconnect and that isn't antithetical to the goal because the goal is having servers be able to do it. If you were told that fediverse means all activitypub servers interconnect they were either misunderstanding or lying.
In the end, on paper, it results to more active users because they will use their main account that they created innitially and simply have a new account to access the blocked content on other insurances