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…

  • 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.