this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
32 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

104 readers
2 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Hm, yeah I guess no one has been speculating about this part of the de/federate Threads reality. Everyone's worried about Meta and EEE, but what we should have really been discussing is the history of Meta moderation and community guidelines which have often cited "free speech" when people use white supremacist dog whistling but cite "calls to violence" when people of color actively complain about white supremacy.

There's a reason why we have seen news articles about large LEO Facebook groups trading and making joke comments on racist memes...

We were worried about the technology, but we should have been worried about cultural infiltration.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Exactly. What happens when a far-right troll like libsoftiktok sics thousands of rabid followers on a fediverse account? I get the feeling our small, volunteer group of moderators just don't have the resources to cover that kind of brigading.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, I don't think moderation can even stop brigading or the downvotes to hell avalanche. It could only stop thread and comment creation on just your one community/magazine on your instance.

Nothing could stop a bad faith actor from finding my comments on a different instance and harassing or brigading me there if that instance federated with Threads, even if my instance defederate from Threads.

This Fediverse stuff is... complex.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, at least downvotes isn't going to be much of a problem, as threads users will only be capable of upcoming stuff they see here. They don't have a downvote button. :)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They will be able to send swarms of trolls to harass. If Threads does even federate, I suspect even admins who didn't sign the fedipact will defederate quite fast.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The way the Fediverse is designed you need to actively seek out content. It's not going to be all that easy being a troll from threads attacking content on the Fediverse.

What I could imagine is that bigots might seek out LGTBQIA+ hashtags (along with hashtags related to other culture war dimensions), and find content from the Fediverse that way,

Then again, if that proves to be a problem, sites like Blahaj will probably be pretty darn quick to defederate. And this type of content, even when posted by kbin or Lemmy.world users or whatever, will probably often take place in communities hosted by instances like blahaj. So the thread trolls would find themselves isolated from the discussion pretty fast.

On the other hand, there's a bunch of queer people who use threads. If all servers immediately defederate from it, these people will never get to have a glimpse into the fediverse. They could benefit a lot from joining a different platform, but if we focus only on the bigots we'll end up never reaching them.

The same logic of course applies to other communities affected by the anti woke culture war bullshit, I'm just too lazy to come up with a more original example. :)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't know, a lot of us found our way here from Reddit and Twitter without being federated.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For what it's worth, LibsOfTikTok's already getting slapped by Threads's moderation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nope, she has repeatedly had posts reinstated after being initially flagged for hate speech, including that one. Meta knows their audience.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Ah, damn. Should've figured it was too good to be true if she was posting it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, we haven't been speculating about moderation because that's a known quantity. A major driver of defederarion discussion on the microblogging side of the fedi has been about the moderation issues that people would have to deal with if federated with Threads. And especially about bad actors on Threads getting posts from users on defederated instances via intermediary sites, and then spotlighting vulnerable people to trolls on other instances.

It's why many niche Mastodon instances are talking about defederating from any other site not blocking Threads. It's a significant mental safety risk for vulnerable people in the alt-right's sights.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I'm not an "early adopter" of the Fediverse per se, but I came over on the reddit migration on June 11. I feel like I've been an information sponge trying to wrap my head around the organization of the Fediverse and seeing the benefits. I think I'm pretty up to speed, at least enough to discuss it with people offline and explain it in a way that does it some justice.

But I don't think I've seen a lot of discussion about the drawbacks of the Fediverse. I've seen a few threads about major privacy concerns related to the Fediverse, but most of the comments responding just kind of hand wave the issue.

Seeing a possible larger issue here regarding the moderation issues, I can't see anything other than a total containment of Threads away from other instances. Like, great - use ActivityPub, but don't talk to me (kbin.social) or my child (literally everything else that wants to interact together in the Fediverse with kbin) again. Lol

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Supporting free speech means allowing people you hate to talk too. Censor a Nazi one day, then the next day it's something your weird friend likes, then the next day it's something you like.

Everyone deserves a platform online, but they have to earn their audience. Censoring them is only going to make more people want to go to other platforms to hear and see what they have to say.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I am not required to respect "free speech" when it comes from a place of fundamental dishonesty. Slander is not protected speech. They are within their rights to bitch and complain about whatever non-issue they're up in arms about today and I'm within my rights to ban and ignore them.

They are, notably, NOT within their rights to call for violence and death against LGBTQ+ folks, which many are doing, because that constitutes hate speech, assault, or even inciting a riot, depending on which particular situation you find yourself being a bigot in. All three of these are illegal and are not protected speech.

Tolerance of intolerance is not a paradox, it is a failing of the people who are supposed to be protecting their communities. Tolerance of Nazis and racism are not required by the tenets of the Constitution or by the tenets of democracy and instead actively erode the protections enshrined within each.

In short, Nazi punks, fuck off.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It doesn't mean you have to give them the platform, though. If they want to create their own Nazi federation that's entirely on them, but you don't have to integrate their content.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If these companies are going to control what's on their platform then they shouldn't get a liability shield.

They're a bookstore censoring the content of the books they have in the store.

If you don't like what someone has to say online you don't have to click on their profiles or follow them or read what they're saying.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's just common misconception. Free speech is there to protect people from the government, not business. If my anti-racism voice gets suppressed on Threads (assuming I ever make an account there) I'd just move to another platform.

And really, there's no good reason for a well-intended internet community to allow racism expand.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Racism will expand if you censor it.

How many racists have a big audience? And I mean openly, explicitly racist. Not the dog-whistle racism from Fox news.

People have been censored by automated systems for just criticizing racists. Yes, that means that all the people who call them out for being shitty get censored too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Racism will expand if you censor it.

Literally the exact opposite is true. Deplatforming bigots limits their audience, and limit's their ability to propagandise.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Free speech has always had limits.

It’s mostly about the government not arresting you for what you say. It doesn’t protect you from the consequences of saying hateful things in a public space. Say something racist in an area largely populated by the race you’re talking about and you’re likely to get kicked, post some right wing misinformation in an online space that is largely left-leaning and you’re likely to have your post deleted. Neither of those things infringe on anyone’s right to free speech because other people also have the right to not want to listen to Nazis or racists or TERFS etc.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

such a slippery slope! supporting free speech means allowing people to talk about how much they want queer people dead, too. tell the people calling for violence against queer people to fuck off, and maybe one day your very own calls for violence might get told to fuck off!

everybody deserves a platform to call for the extermination of people groups, but they have to earn their audience 😏. i think we should do absolutely nothing to stop them, because doing anything just makes them stronger anyways. /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

The right to free speech is drawn from a US constitutional amendment, which says the US government can't censor speech, but it has nothing to do with private platforms like this, much less individual responses to Nazi rhetoric. Nobody owes hate speech a free platform.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

White supremacists are like that guy nobody ever wants at their party but who always invites himself anyway. It's hard enough to keep him from washing his balls in the punch bowl when you're actively trying to keep him out. Meta doesn't even try except to the meager extent required by law.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, bigots are bad. And if you see a bigot on the internet, you don't have to click on their profile or view anything they put out into the void...And it is a void by the way, the amount of people that their content appeals to is a very small number of people.

So what's the harm in them having a platform if hardly anyone will even pay attention to them?

dealing with someone who physically shows up to your place unwanted and uninvited isn't the same thing as allowing them to tweet mean things.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I think I get what you're saying, and there was a time when I would've agreed. I spent more years than I care to admit on 4chan, years I wouldn't have spent if I didn't think there was some value to people expressing their opinions no matter what they were. But...I dunno man, it's not a ton of people, but I wouldn't call it a "very small" number of people. Also the issue I'm getting at isn't that they have a platform, it's that if you let them they will try to make every platform their platform. And if it's an organized group they will do so in an organized way that is not the same as Uncle Ted cocking off about immigrants again or whatever.

You're correct that you don't have to look at their profile, any more than you have to drink the pube punch. The issue isn't that I had to see the words of meanies. The issue is that allowing white supremacists to use your platform a) makes it look like the platform condones such things, which reflects both on the platform and the other users, which may cause the non-extremist users to leave if it gets bad enough, this tipping the balance of users more in the extremists' favor; and b) encourages people who agree with them. And the number of people who think certain people shouldn't have rights doesn't have to be very big for them to decide to organize and do something about it, including egging others on.

Also you mentioned tweets, so I should apologize for not clarifying before. When expressing concern over extremists inviting themselves, I was not thinking about Twitter so much as I was thinking about the fediverse. I'm more concerned with what people are trying to build here than with whatever it is they're doing at Twitter these days. Elon's gonna Elon and we can't control that. We can, though, choose what company we keep here.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

The genocide of the rohyinga people was largely organized on Facebook. Meta is not to be trusted with any of this shit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's what I expected from the start.

I guess I just assumed that that was commonly understood, As soon as I saw that it was going to be run according to Facebook's moderation standards, I took that to mean that it was going to be tailored to suit white supremacists and Christian nationalists, like Facebook.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

𝓓𝓮𝓯𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓮

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Threads, while built on ActivityHub is not federated.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If all instances defederate it will force people to hand their data over to Zuckerberg to access the bigger network, and they will have no control over what shite the algorithm pushes into their timeline.

There's a very good case for some instances to defederate. All of them defederating would be a terrible mistake.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is no strategical alliance to be made with Meta. That company literally complicitly hosted the platform for a genovide to be planned.. There is no outsmarting, strategic federating or any sudden interest on their side involved. Its all a plot to wring people out in the most heinous way they can get away with.

What exactly would any fediverse user be getting out of this? Why would Meta have any interest in giving us anything, even attention?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're not addressing anything I said.

Do I have to write "Meta is evil" as a preface to every comment?

Meta does not need the Fediverse. In terms of user numbers, we're a rounding error. It has no need to embrace in order to extinguish. Pootling about on your high horse demanding the Fediverse become a monolith (FFS) will do absolutely nothing to stop them.

If the Fediverse universally defederates it will force millions of users who want/need a larger network to hand their data over to Meta and the Fediverse will die for everyone who wasn't on it before October 2022.

There are no good choices here. But there are some absolutely daft ones.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You’re not addressing anything I said.

I was trying to say that you arent being creative enough in imagining the awful plans they might have for federation. There is no winning with Meta. The best move is not to play.

Meta does not need the Fediverse. In terms of user numbers, we’re a rounding error. It has no need to embrace in order to extinguish.

Companies arent actually that rational in this regard. I completely agree that the fediverse is not a threat in any possible meaning of that word, but that doesnt mean Meta wouldnt like to have its feelers on us or destroy the protocol.

If the Fediverse universally defederates it will force millions of users who want/need a larger network to hand their data over to Meta and the Fediverse will die for everyone who wasn’t on it before October 2022.

Defederation just means that Threads is blocked from viewing/interacting with fediverse servers. Right now, Threads is deferated (because it cant interact), but simply because they havent set it up yet. People can still learn about the fediverse and join up whenever they want. I dont think I understand your point.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Defederation just means that Threads is blocked from viewing/interacting with fediverse servers. Right now, Threads is deferated (because it cant interact), but simply because they havent set it up yet. People can still learn about the fediverse and join up whenever they want. I dont think I understand your point.

My point is that the Fediverse is growing because of exiles from Twitter and Reddit. The vast majority of those users want/need a bigger network than is currently available on the Fediverse to get the breadth and depth of content that was on those sites.

If all instances defederate, then many of those users will reluctantly hand their data over to Zuckerberg instead. The vast majority of them already have through Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp etc.

Meta might well want to murder us but universal defederation is just committing suicide instead. It's the wrong tactic.

My hope is that Threads sticks with a shitty algorithmic feed and bombards people with corporate bullshit, and its users find out that independent instances exist and will give them more control.

My other hope is that other mega-corps (Google, Mozilla, etc) open up their own instances and end up holding each other hostage because it's so easy for their users to jump ship to a competitor.

It's a difficult situation to be sure but universal defederation is giving up without a fight.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The vast majority of those users want/need a bigger network than is currently available on the Fediverse to get the breadth and depth of content that was on those sites.

Disclaimer, i havent used Threads. But everything i've seen from it was just influencer spam, grifting and corporate twitter. I dont think i want that kind of content. Quite the opposite, this is the reason i chose the fediverse.

My hope is that Threads sticks with a shitty algorithmic feed and bombards people with corporate bullshit, and its users find out that independent instances exist and will give them more control.

Why would anyone sign up for those instances if they can just look at that stuff from Threads? Furthermore, it would actually make things more difficult, because explaining the fediverse to people that are coming from a corporate social media but that have already had fediverse content is just going to turn them away. It would be far more comfortable for them to just continue using threads.
Thirdly, it would also influence the federated instances. All the influencer spam and brand bs thats going on over there would also end up on the fediverse.
And lastly, we dont have to win over every user and every bit of content. The fediverse isnt some VC funded social media that requires unlimited growth. If there is nothing good to grow into, it can just stay the size it is and be fine. I dont get the constant arguments for growth if the new content would be the worst social media can offer and the users would be facebook tier grifters.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›