That makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

Doesn’t this mean defederation is kinda pointless though, since meta could just stealth-add an activitypub server that did nothing but record all data?

Is threads federating with Lemmy??? I thought it was federating with mastodon (and mastodon-like).

So are they normies or are they ragebait monkeys?

Explain to me how defederating threads isn’t just impotently screaming into the void, because I’ve explained how it is and all you’ve done is have a tantrum in response. Maybe I’m wrong, but you’ve yet to even make an argument about the benefits of defederating.

In the end, this is the magic of the fediverse: we can both appeal to our admins about what we want, and then move to instances that have what we want. You tell me to move to threads, and I tell you to go to an instance that doesn’t federate with anyone.

Now fuck off and express your impotent rage somewhere else.

And once again I repeat: Defederating won’t hurt meta. They can likely already harvest all the user data they would get from federation.

So you’re senselessly taking your take against meta out on normies.

I’d say you may want to consider why this is the case. If you’re OK federating tumblr (which I agree with), but not ok federating threads, even if defederating threads won’t impact Meta at all and only negatively affects thread users - that seems pretty hypocritical and unnecessarily spiteful towards normies.

this wont cause meta to eat a bag of dicks. it doesn’t actually hurt meta if you defederate with them. if they want to harvest data, they can already do that by standing up their own activitypub server and just subscribing to everything.

not everyone is as technically savvy as we are, or as aware of corporate politics as we are. as much as I think they should be, they arent, and so they use facebook and threads and twitter. I dont think we should exclude them on the sole basis of their ignorance in this particular area.

Most people don’t care about that shit as much as we do. and if a social network doesn’t have a good supply of normies, then it devolves into a circlejerk cesspit real quick.

You make the fediverse a worse place, if your default is to arbitrarily exclude and gatekeep against people unlike you, as it seems to be.

It is a mastodon server. A mastodon server run by meta. So how exactly is defederation going to benefit you?

Your response isn’t self consistent.

they’d only have to make a profile on a different, normal server my “All” feed would still be full of garbage-tier content that people typically expect and post on Meta’s services

If they make a profile on a normal server then your feed will be full of that same content you don’t want. You’re trying to exclude users, not meta itself.

Besides, you keep taking as though they’re federating with Lemmy. They’re not, they’re federating with mastodon. Having mastodon posts show up automatically in your Lemmy feeds is unusual. Kbin, maybe.

I don’t like meta as a company.

But I don’t want to exclude a bunch of people just because they decided to use a server owned by meta. It’s not like the server is a community dedicated to hurting people or promoting hate speech or something, and I don’t want to punish people just because they’re not savvy enough to understand the problems with meta. Let them federate and just don’t follow any of them if you’re not interested in any of them.

Defederating isn’t going to benefit us or hurt meta, it’s just gonna hurt the people who use threads.

That doesn’t seem to be the concern, or at least it’s expressed in a way that describes how the fediverse is meant to work.

Why? Why are humans who use threads so repulsive to you that you leave an entire federated social network just because some people used a particular server?

The elitist gatekeeping. Not that “I don’t want to see their content” but instead “I want to prevent anyone from seeing their content”.

You’re just describing how the fediverse works. One social network that is partially comparable with another network. Like subscribing to pixelated from mastodon, etc. not all features are available, but some are. Not only is there no such thing as a neutral platform, but the decentralization of mastodon and the fediverse in general is specifically to address that.

The danger of meta is their data scraping - something they can already do anyway without their own servers being federated.

That’s not how federation and mastodon works, and you know that very well.

Simply don’t follow anyone on threads if you don’t wanna see thread content. But who TF cares where the content comes from?

I’m all for it. People can defederate if they need to, but I’m all for just letting it happen. If I have friends on threads but I don’t wanna join, cool.

Let’s all tone down the snobbery.

By “long history” I meant decades not centuries. Still long enough to be multigenerational.

Also there are more ideologies than just religion and economics, and conflict can be over a combination of them. Just because one party is colonial, doesn’t mean that all conflicts are necessarily going to be primarily over capital. That will of course be a part, but it’s also not like one day all the Jews in Europe were like “let’s go kick out all the people from this area because lolz”.

I’m trying to avoid talking about my personal beliefs here, but I’m definitely not of the opinion that both sides are equally bad.

I absolutely agree that colonialism is a huge (biggest?) factor though, and that goes all the way back to when European powers chose the land and kicked out the native people.

Everything is related to everything, so if course colonialism and by extension capitalism plays a part. And while capitalists are absolutely using both sides for their own gains, I don’t think there driving force of the conflict comes down to capital, but a conflict of non-economic ideologies.

But, it’s a very large conflict with a very long history, so not only am I not an expert, but the nature of the conflict may have many aspects that change over time.

For practical purposes it has been settled. Maybe there is an objective good, but nobody has agreed on it so all we have is subjectivity.

I’m making assumptions here, but it sounds like you’re sarcastically pointing out contradiction.

But there is no contradiction here. “Good” is subjective, and when they subjectively compare the two then one is much better, subjectively