There’s a common false dichotomy about #Threads: cut them off, or leave it to user choice.

I can’t speak to other software, but Mastodon offers a third option: limiting Threads. This can be done for all users of a server.

- You can follow Threads accounts after clicking through a warning.

- People who don’t follow those same people won’t see their posts.

- You have to manually approve followers _from_ Threads.

Basically, it puts Threads in quarantine, without cutting off all connections.

I like that option for our server, social.coop, and it’s the one we voted to implement earlier this year.

We know that Threads already hosts bad actors (e.g., LibsOfTikTok). We know some reasonable folks have set up shop there and will continue to flee there from X.

This option makes it clear that Threads is not a safe space, while allowing limited connections.

Every instance will implement the option that makes sense to them, of course.

social.coop/@eloquence/1115888…

  • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Can anyone help me understand what any Mastodon instance can possibly stand to gain by federating with Threads? The size disparity is absolutely massive. Anything going to Threads will be lost like a drop in the ocean and anything coming from Threads will be a deluge that drowns anything on Mastodon. You can limit your instance to only one of these but it’s still bad.

    Following Threads posters from a Mastodon client sounds ok at first, your users can get lots of Threads content, they get accustomed to it, and one day Meta changes the protocol and now you have to decide if you’re a Mastodon or a Threads client. Or your users start wondering why they’re using a subpar Threads client when most of their content is on there.

    • masimatutu@nerdica.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It actually isn’t that big. It grew a lot initially because people on Instagram were practically forced to join (or so I’ve heard), but then activity died down very quickly (www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/tech/th…).

      I’d say the ability to interact with the high-profile accounts on threads via Masto makes it a much more attractive alternative for many, although I personally have no interest in doing so.

    • Malta Soron@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      One of the main reasons I like using Mastodon for work is the fact that it’s completely separate from the large social networks. It’s only used by people who are committed to creating a new, better place. I don’t think users of Threads (or Xitter, for that matter) would have anything to offer for me.

  • ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This doesn’t solve the problem of sending Threads a copy of absolutely every bit of activity that happens on the instance. If I’m on an instance that federates with Threads, even if I put them out of sight/out of mind, they still get a copy of everything I do. A lot of people are on the fediverse for privacy reasons, yet here we are with people begging to hand Facebook this data on a silver platter.

    “But why hide information that’s public? They could just scrape it.”

    Yes, they could. But a real-time feed of activity is more complete, easier to manage, and doesn’t require them to go and build a scraping tool just for this.

    If I don’t want Threads to have any of my data sent to them, I should be able to choose without needing to leave an instance I’ve been on for potentially years.