Looks like we're getting company!

Since yesterday I use GoToSocial to replace my Mastodon account but unlike Mastodon I can't subscribe to Lemmy users and groups...

Small disappointment, but a lot of hope.

cyberpunk.lol is now open for registrations!!!

WHO ARE WE? we’re a scrappy little fresh-faced underdog instance of glitch mastodon. we have but one humbly stated mission: to put the PUNK back into cyberpunk on the fediverse

WHO AM I? i’m vanta. trans enby girl polyam lesbian gender terrorist, the fediverse’s favorite pirate radio DJ, DIY clothing auteur, and rogue wordsmith extraordinaire. i’ve been posting on fedi heavily since 2017

THREADS? not only is this instance a fedipact instance that has threads blocked, but… i’m the one who made the whole pact to begin with lmao

Hi everyone,

Not sure if it’s possible, but would like to know if there is something like this:

1. Can one use just one app / social network to follow the other Fediverse social networks?

2. And if so, does any app / social network allow for bulk loading a list of keywords to use for blocking. (Everything seems to allow to only insert one word at a time….???)

Have had other Fediverse social accounts in the past, but the splintering and keywords issue always becomes a mission. Very surprised that even Twitter / X also only allows one word at a time. Instagram, Facebook and Threads allow for bulk loading with commas, which is also great.

EDIT:

Added:

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but assume some of you might be on other Fedi networks as well? ANY help would be greatly appreciated.

NOTE: using an iPhone, so Android apps won’t work unfortunately. :-(

edit: RSS

It's not solely about the fediverse, but it is mentioned.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/11252604

I found this link aggregator that someone made for a personal project and they had an exciting idea for a sorting algorithm whose basic principle is the following:

1. Upvotes show you more links from other people who have upvoted that content
2. Downvotes show you fewer links from other people who have upvoted that content

I thought the idea was interesting and wondered if something similar could be implemented in the fediverse.

They currently don't have plans of open-sourcing their work which is fine but I think it shouldn't be too hard to try and replicate something similar here right?

They have the option to try this out in guest mode where you don't have to sign in, but it seems to be giving me relevant content after upvoting only 3 times.

There is more information on their website if you guys are interested.

Edit: Changed title to something more informative

Authorized Fetch (also referred to as Secure Mode in Mastodon) was recently circumvented by a stupidly easy solution: just sign your fetch requests with some other domain name.

The link goes to this users Mastodon post on the subject. I'm going to copy part of the text of his post without having to post the Threads post they were shown. Click through if you want to see for yourself, avoid if such things are upsetting to you.

"This was a post promoted to me from within Instagram to try and get me to use threads. Ill say that again: this is the promotional content shown to non-threads users as an inducement to join threads."

If you do click through to the Mastodon thread, you'll see several other people confirming they've seen the same or similar posts promoting Threads.

I've said the same thing in comments to other Threads related posts in this community but I'm going to say it again; didn't we create and use fediverse software like Mastodon, Lemmy, PixelFed etc in large part to escape the constant hate-baiting and algorithmic manipulation of companies like Meta? Why are so many in the fediverse prepared to throw their fellow fediverse users under the bus by exposing them to a company and a set of users who not only say these things and not only allow them to be said but actually use them as a promotional tool to encourage more people onto Threads?

If Threads was a fediverse instance, it would've been defederated from by just about everyone by now. Why are some people bending over backwards to give Meta a free pass?

'Wait and see' I hear people say. I can already see.

Based on data from https://fedipact.veganism.social/ it seems that the majority of instances blocks threads.net. I'm sure there's Lemmy instances with either approach that have slipped through the cracks as the list is a work in progress.

The percentage of users doesn't correlate to instances as the biggest instance on the Lemmyverse has roughly 3x the users of the second largest, a NSFW instance, 4x the users of the biggest "niché" instance and 5x the users of what I see as the second largest general purpose instance.

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/7593930

This is the most comprehensive analysis of the Threads situation that I have seen to far. I recommend giving it a read.

Yeah really, excellent article!

Found via Jamie Zawinski (“JWZ”): Thread federation

This is a great (long) look at the issues around federating between Mastodon and Threads from several angles, and manages to do so without letting the white-hot rage at Zuckerberg's fetid empire shine through and overpower the discussion of practical considerations.

The Fediverse is currently divided over whether or not to block Threads. Here are some of the things people are worried about, some opportunities that might come from it, and what we need to do to prepare.

((I'm not an expert, I've been reading up on things as much as I can. If there's an error, I'll happily correct it!))

TLDR:

• Nearly all of us distrust Meta and have the same broader goals
• We need to pick the best move to go against powerful companies like Meta
• Defederation may not be the right move, and it might even help Meta move forward (and more easily perform EEE)
• There are other options that we can spend our energy on
• It doesn't matter for Lemmy (yet), this is more a conversation for Mastodon, Firefish and Kbin

We've been getting a LOT of posts on this, but the misconceptions make it harder for us to decide what to do. If we're going to try and protect the Fediverse against large, well funded companies like Meta, figuring out the right action is important. We need to actually look at the options, consider the realistic outcomes, and plan around that.

I'm willing to bet around 95% of users on Lemmy and Mastodon CHOSE to be here because we understand the threat Meta/Facebook poses, and we want to do something about it. That's not in question here.

So in that sense, please be kind to the other user you are replying to. The vast majority of us share the same goal here. When we disagree, we disagree on the best path forward and not the goal. Wanting to stay federated DOES NOT mean the user wants to help Meta or thinks that Meta is here for our benefit.

Misconception: Defederation will hinder Meta's EEE

Not necessarily, and it might even help the EEE. Here's a link to some history of EEE, what it means, and some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish. I'd recommend at least skimming it because it's interesting (and because this isn't the only fight)

Assuming Meta is doing an EEE move, they're in the embrace stage. That’s not about us embracing them, it’s about them embracing the protocol, which they can do whether we stay federated or not.

Defederation can tell newcomers that the defederated instance is an island, and they’re better off joining the place where they can talk to their friends and see the content they want. We saw this early during the Reddit exodus with Beehaw, where many users hopped instances away from Beehaw.

Meta can more easily embrace if more people actively use their platform. They can more easily extend if we're not around to explain why extending is a poisonous action. Being federated can allow us to encourage users to ditch Meta’s platform and join an open one (ex. Mastodon, Firefish, etc.)

Misconception: Defederation is the only move

Defederation is the first option that comes to mind. It sounds simple, it is loud and newsworthy, and it can be done with the click of a mouse. But if it is a bad action, then what are the good actions?

1. Don't let them have a monopoly over the use of ActivityPub. Grow the other platforms: The extend stage only works when the platform gets a near monopoly over use of the standard. That brings up the first action. If there are enough users, services and resources on things like Mastodon/Lemmy, then Meta (or any other company) can't just extend the spec without causing their users to ditch Threads to stay connected to the content they want to see.
   • Reach out to organizations in your area or line of work. Help them join Mastodon or other relevant Fediverse platforms. I'm sure the for-profit companies put money into this process, so brainstorm and reach out
   • Add your Fediverse accounts to the bio of your other accounts, and share posts from the Fediverse elsewhere

As long as there is a healthy community away from Meta (ex. what we have right now), then they can't extend & extinguish.

2. Protect the Standards and share why it is important

• Share posts from experts about strict adherence to standards, support regulatory and legal advocacy (interoperability requirements etc.), and educate other users about the risks.

(I didn't want to say more here because I'm not an expert, I'm happy to edit more points in)

Misconception: We should still defederate because of Privacy Risks

Not necessarily (and likely not at all?)

Meta is notorious for gathering data and then abusing that data, so this is an issue to consider. However, the way that activitypub works, the outgoing data is publicly available. Defederating with Meta doesn't prevent that, and federating doesn't give them any more data than they could get otherwise.

Lemmy instances need to decide

This is a big point: It doesn't really matter for Lemmy right now, one way or another.

It's more of an issue when data start coming IN to Lemmy from Mastodon and Meta's Threads. See below

Legitimate risks from Federation with Meta, and more effective ways to counter them

• Algorithmic Amplification: Meta's history of using algorithms that prioritize engagement can amplify harmful or divisive content. These algorithms are not public like it is with Mastodon and other FOSS platforms.

• Misinformation and Content Moderation: All Fediverse platforms will have to work on content moderation and misinformation. Platforms like Meta, focussed on profit and advertising, will likely moderate in a way that protects their income. Those moderation decisions will be federated around.

• Commercialization and User Exploitation: Meta's for-profit nature means it's incentivized to maximize user engagement, at the expense of our well-being.

Counters:

• Promote user control over their feeds, and develop USEFUL but safe and open algorithms for the feeds
• Flag content and users from risky platforms, with a little warning icon and explanation (ex. 'Content is from a for-profit platform, and it may ___')
• Implement features so that users can opt in or opt out from seeing content from risky platforms. In particular on explore/discover/public feeds, so it doesn't affect content the user is following.
• Develop strict community guidelines that can get Meta (and other companies) sent into the 'blocked by default' bins mentioned above.

Final point: Evaluate things critically. Don't even just take my word for it. I doubt Meta or other groups care enough about Lemmy yet to spread disinformation here, and every post I've seen promoting defederation feels like a good faith attempt for something they believe in. But it's still worth thinking about what we're supporting.

Sometimes what feels like a good move might not help, and could even make things worse.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/9799372

What's Meta up to?

1. Embrace ActivityPub, , Mastodon, and the fediverse

2. Extend ActivityPub, Mastodon, and the fediverse with a very-usable app that provides additional functionality (initially the ability to follow everybody you're following on Instagram, and to communicate with all Threads users) that isn't available to the rest of the fediverse – as well over time providing additional services and introducing incompatibilities and non-standard improvements to the protocol

3. Exploit ActivityPub, Mastodon, and the fediverse by utilizing them for profit – and also using them selfishly for Meta's own ends

Since the fediverse is so much smaller than Threads, the most obvious ways of exploiting it – such as stealing market share by getting people currently in the fediverse to move to Threads – aren't going to work. But exploitation is one of Meta's core competences, and once you start to look at it with that lens, it's easy to see some of the ways even their initial announcement and tiny first steps are exploiting the fediverse: making Threads feel like a more compelling platform, and reshaping regulation. Longer term, it's a great opportunity for Meta to explore – and maybe invest in – shifting their business model to decentralized surveillance capitalism.

This feature is particularly important as threads starts to federate. Without authorized fetch, there is the possibility of content from folks who are defederated from threads making their way over through intermediary followers.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/5068112

Highlights include:

0:51 Looking back on Mastodon’s epic year
3:22 Small team, big goals
4:55 The arrival of Threads/Meta: pro or con?
9:01 The way Mastodon/Fediverse is architected to provide a better social media experience
11:24 The “big win” of Meta adopting an open standard
12:10 The game-changing paradigm shift in how social media works
17:30 Why Meta is committing to Threads — a significant moment for the social web
18:10 Mastodon community’s reaction to Threads’ entry
19:24 Preemptively building walls to block Threads: self-defeating?
21:10 Tools and advice for instance owners on interoperating with Threads
26:09 Gaining momentum: who will federate next?
28:34 Bluesky
30:00 ActivityPub: the beauty of a generic protocol
38:24 User experiences in the Fediverse
41:06 “Embrace, extend, extinguish” and the XMPP comparison
50:28 Funding Mastodon through Patreon donations
53:10 U.S. nonprofit version of Mastodon and grant applications
54:23 On outside contributions to Mastodon’s code base
57:42 Hopes and dreams for the future

Eternal September or the September that never ended is Usenet slang for a period beginning around 1993 when Internet service providers began offering Usenet access to many new users. The flood of new users overwhelmed the existing culture for online forums and the ability to enforce existing norms. AOL followed with their Usenet gateway service in March 1994, leading to a constant stream of new users. Hence, from the early Usenet point of view, the influx of new users in September 1993 never ended.

Made by Nume MacAroon at Veganism.social https://veganism.social/@nm