Mastodon's Founder & CEO Gives His Thoughts on Meta's Threads

What should happen? That's all public information, they can (and probably do) scrape this already. As does all and any AI project and company.

I've posted this elsewhere in the thread so hopefully it doesn't feel spammy, but this is from their privacy policy:

"Information From Third Party Services and Users: We collect information about the Third Party Services and Third Party Users who interact with Threads. If you interact with Threads through a Third Party Service (such as by following Threads users, interacting with Threads content, or by allowing Threads users to follow you or interact with your content), we collect information about your third-party account and profile (such as your username, profile picture, IP address, and the name of the Third Party Service on which you are registered), your content (such as when you allow Threads users to follow, like, reshare, or have mentions in your posts), and your interactions (such as when you follow, like, reshare, or have mentions in Threads posts).

We use the information we collect for Threads for the purposes described in the Meta Privacy Policy, including to provide, personalize, and improve Threads and other Meta Products (including seamless personalization of your experience across Threads and Instagram), to provide measurement, analytics and other business services (including ads), to promote safety, integrity and security, to communicate with you, and to research and innovate for social good."

https://help.instagram.com/515230437301944?helpref=faq_content

Isn't all of that already available to Meta (and anyone else) via the web UI anyway? They don't need to be federated for that, they can just use a web crawler. And I assume they are.

Frankly, there are other instances out there that I'm more worried about than Threads.

They already can, everything you do on Mastadon is already public.

EEE, Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Meta may very well be embracing federation concepts to eventually return back to their former selves.

I'm no fan of Meta or their practices, to be clear. Though I do think there are potential benefits in having the ability to communicate cross-platform, so long as some reasonable safeguards are put into place. I'm firmly in the camp that doesn't believe that Google killed XMPP because XMPP was never a popular or widespread protocol prior to GTalk, and the users who came and went when Google did what they did were Google users, rather than XMPP users. So much like Eugen here says, it went back to how it was before they got involved.

That said, I do think that Meta in its current incarnation is an entirely different animal. I suspect that early on in a post-federated world, we'll start seeing dark patterns intended to lure users to Threads. I'm envisioning registration gates similar to paywalls on news sites. "This content is available exclusively on Threads! Click here to register your account!" type stuff. More sinister, there's nothing to stop Meta from appending advertisements in the body of posts created on Threads. Hell - they could go full evil genius and suppress that they're doing it entirely on their own platform since they'll have some other ad delivery mechanism there, which would mean the only people being served those ads would be federated users OFF of Threads who see or interact with content created on Threads.

So while I'm not a doomsayer about Threads and federation, I do think that we as a community are going to have to make some decisions about how to handle them. Having access to a community the scale that Meta will produce isn't necessarily a bad thing. And because of how Lemmy / Mastodon / KBin / Fediverse apps work, we as users will always have the ability to control what we see in our feeds. At worst, it makes /All/ less usable, which is admittedly quite a big loss given how useful it has been to get subscribed to worthwhile content since joining Lemmy. And obviously, some instances will elect not to federate with Threads at all, which gives users choice on the type of community and content they want to interact with regularly.

With some care, likely some effort around defining usage rights for user generated content, and some new content control / filtering capabilities yet to be developed, I think that these networks can coexist in a way that is mutually beneficial to a degree, but if not - defederation is a click away.

Ima guess that Meta’s support and brand recognition dwarfs Mastodon’s, not re-assuring and rather self absorbed imo.

Yeaaah, when I read this I was just like, "Have you been outside of Mastodon lately? The brand's not so great to those folks that have heard of it in context." Nearly every time I've seen Mastodon come up outside of Mastodon, it's to complain about it being confusing or only used by tech nerds and there's nobody worth following there.

And I personally like Mastodon, but there's no denying the brand's not reputable to many folks, and it's probably still relatively unfamiliar/unknown to a majority of folks that don't closely follow social media stuff.

The problem is that Mastodon's brand is absolutely nothing and Eugene has been very resistant to popular features. He’s forgetting that the ways in which Mastodon are opinionated are not very popular even among Mastodon essentialists.

I’m admittedly unfamiliar with Eugene, so was using the title listed in the blog post.

Actually the copyright option might be the best one. Theoretically speaking the instance would need to state that all work is licensed only and that every comment and post has the copyright retained to creator/OP.

It's just a simple tweak of the terms of service, but that would be enough to do it. Getting them to respect it is another ball game, because as we've seen with Midjourney and other photo apps, they have clearly scraped photos with watermarks that they didn't have access to, and have used them to both train their models, and in the final output. This is why there was discussion of a class action lawsuit, although I didn't hear where that ended up going.

What does spam/abusive use have to do with Threads specifically.

Also, can you justify your concerns? You just stated a few words without saying why it is a concern. This article did a pretty good job of not only stating the same concern words you used, but why the fears are a bit overblown.

I don’t know the others you mentioned, but how is libs of tik tok a ‘harassment’ account?

And half of the feed is people talking about how addicted they already are.

Umm...read the article.

Seems reasonable to exercise caution. Plus, unless you have the means, it'd be a tough spot to deal with resource scaling without knowing what the volume of new traffic will look like.

As a small instance, defederating from Threads could do more harm than good. Denying users access to a potentially large amount of content could cause them to move on.

If you’re concerned about them slurping your content, don’t be. They can just easily set up an instance at billjoejimbob.com and slurp it indirectly. They very likely already are.

They might dip their toes in at first. But then you'll have 9 out of 10 big communities/users on Threads (or probably 99 out of 100 if we're realistic). And at that point if Meta defederates nobody of those users will care. Threads will become Twitter 2.0 and be its own thing, while Mastodon will be crushed with a tiny user base in comparison (which will get even smaller because most content is on Meta servers, so users switch over to Threads).

There's a 90% probability that Threads takes over from the failing Twitter. Nothing will change. No one will learn anything. More of everyone's data will be stollen.

They had 10 million signups within 7 hours of launch.

Tell me you've not read the article without telling me you've not read the article.

Lol are you serious? What, did you want a little bubble on the internet where corporations don't exist? What does "open source" mean to you, open to only the entities you allow in? Like the article says, join an instance that defederates every corporate entity or make your own, but don't blame developers of open source software for keeping it open.

If threads becomes larger than the entire fediverse, then it's stupid to not be compatible with them to use their content for the mastodon users. You can also begin to pillage users every time the platform does something stupid with theoretically minimal issues of losing followers.

Bluesky seems to be pretty successful at drawing the "B-listers" from twitter, much more than threads at least. We'll see if they actually stay but it's been surprisingly positively received so far, for some reason that I can't comprehend.

I am just afraid at that point it will be too late... Anything created by facebook is imho quite dangerous and the fact they want to come to fediverse is a bit scary for me.