Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
It's always a pleasure to see a popular Threads account with fediverse-sharing enabled. Despite such a vast difference in the platforms, we can achieve a human connection. But fediverse integration in Threads is still in a sorry state over a year since launch. They need to be able to follow us back. They need to see when we mention them. Those are such basic things.
@Sir_Osis_of_Liver@beige.partyIf I wanted to be on Threads, I'd have a Threads account.
As far as I'm concerned they can fuck all the way off.
I moved to an instance that blocks Threads so I don't have to interact with them.
@Sir_Osis_of_Liver Well, you could say "If I wanted to be on beige.party, I'd have a beige.party account", and yet here we are talking to each other while using completely separate platforms. That's the principle of the fediverse and I don't see why it shouldn't apply to Threads. I want to talk to people regardless of which platform they choose.
If you can't see the difference between a massive, industry dominating conglomerate with a history of devastating what it considers to be competitors, and an instance run as a hobby, then I can't help you.
Frankly, I can't believe anyone could be that naive.
@Sir_Osis_of_Liver Do you refuse to accept text messages or phone calls from friends unless they're on the same phone network as you? Do you refuse to send e-mails to your friends unless they self-host their e-mail? It should not matter what provider you use. People should be able to connect. That's the principle of the fediverse.
Telecom is a very bad example.
We've got a problem right now that all of the smaller telecoms in Canada have been bought out by two major vertically-integrated conglomerates.
They collude on pricing and we pay some of the highest rates for mobile, internet and cable on the planet.
The plucky little companies got absolutely steamrolled.
@Gargron @Sir_Osis_of_Liver "People should be able to connect." Meta is the one that isn't interested in granting its users the ability to connect. Their entire business model is predicated upon the construction of walled gardens. They've 3E'd before and will do it again.
@Gargron @Sir_Osis_of_Liver mail servers must comply with ISO/IETF open standards to make SMTP protocol symmetrical, interoperable and independent from the service provider. In a similar way, phone networks must follow ISO/ITU open standards. International no-profit standardisation entities prevent bigger companies to take advantage of a technology against public interest, and I hope that an international standardisation entity for social media platforms will rise asap.
@Gargron @Sir_Osis_of_Liver It’s wild that you can’t see the difference lol
@Gargron @Sir_Osis_of_Liver Id say Telecom is a great example. In north UK, a city called Hull has had an independent telecom since forever - Kcom. Hull has NEVER had British Telecom networks or even public phone boxes (theyre white, not red). Even now, it is still independent. Yet, it is seamlessly connected to BT and beyond into global telecom. Other cities/areas could have done this in the past in UK but they chose not to.
Government owned or regulated utilities are a pretty distinct case.
If there are rules preventing BT from buying or even competing with Kcom, it's not the same.
The province of Saskatchewan still has a government owned telecom, Sasktel. A number of other provinces also used to, but succumbed to promises of easy money and sold them off.
Now they're stuck with dealing with the oligopoly.
@Sir_Osis_of_Liver @Gargron Kcom isnt govt owned but essentially youve answered your own point - its about regulation. Unless and until society (nation state/inter-nation agreements) sorts out digital sovereignty properly, then we will continue to suffer global monopoly private tech dictating all the terms. This needs to stop - the EU are doing quite a bit towards this, not all perfect but a real start. See their recent anti-trust cases with Google for example.
@DrPen
The phone networks and email are poor examples.
They are not ingesting the large amounts of free content, fingerprinting it, categorising it, tracking it, cross matching across the web to other profiles they have already built up on you, using it as bait for their own users to generate more information, they can do the same with and selling the lot off to advertising, marketing and political information data brokers.
You are dealing with large advertising and data brokers companies masquerading as social media companies.
@Gargron so why isn't there a spec so we can shame them into compliance instead of mastodon being implementation-defined by you specifically the way it is now hm. surely the chickens have come home to roost
@hipsterelectron There is a spec that Mastodon is built on, it’s called ActivityPub. If you believe something isn’t outlined enough in the spec I recommend getting in touch with the Social Community Group at the W3C which is responsible for maintaining it.
@Gargron mastodon should be a w3c spec derived from activitypub ideally and it's curious why that's not the case
@Gargron@mastodon.social @Sir_Osis_of_Liver@beige.party "I don't see why it shouldn't apply to threads" buddy. dude. pal. "I want to talk to people regardless of which platform they use" threads hosts and posts actual hate groups and accounts dedicated to whipping up stochastic violence against LGBTQ groups. It's an unmoderated shitshow.
What they DO moderate is speech "critical of Israel", so you can't go on there and actually talk politics. So you say "I want to talk to people regardless", but the only people you actually get to talk to there are groups dedicated to violence against minorities and people denying the active genocide occurring in Palestine right now.
Speaking of meta and genocide, their moderation is infamously so poor they literally have blood on their hands. Your seeming devotion to open speech is worth nothing; all you're doing is enabling genocide-enablers to extend their reach. Ridiculous. You can engage in false equivalence all you want, but it doesn't make you remotely correct.
Then again, considering the massive anti-Black racism problem here on fedi, well, perhaps you're incapable of looking outside your little worldview bubble. I suggest you take that desire to talk to people "regardless of which platform they use" and use it for discussing things with groups impacted by unmoderated hate speech, like the Black people constantly harassed off of Mastodon.
@Gargron@mastodon.social @Sir_Osis_of_Liver@beige.party The fact that you seem to imply the issue is about platforms in general and not specifically Threads, the free hate speech unmoderated garbage server run by genocide-enablers and deniers, is... telling.
I don't think anyone has ever said "hey don't let platform Y federate". They have said "wow fuck that instance." And you compare it... to beige.party? I dunno, did beige.party enable a genocide? Was this beige.party?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/
You know just because it's called "Threads" and not Facebook doesn't mean it's a different company, right? The same amoral assholes who couldn't be bothered to hire moderators are behind Threads. No one gives a shit about the platform (except you, I guess).
@Gargron@mastodon.social @Sir_Osis_of_Liver@beige.party I guess beige.party has a lot to answer for here, according to you, for this comparison to be anything but ridiculous horseshit.
Imagine: you put "DANGER HAZARD" signs around hidden content as a rule but also think, as a rule, that interacting with a server owned by people literally responsible for enabling a genocide is a good thing. Think about your logic, here.
@Gargron @Sir_Osis_of_Liver The difference being that beige.party isn’t host to hate speech. Threads is, and I absolutely do not want to be exposed to that, or to have any posts of mine federated to them.