For those who aren’t aware, Kbin Cafe is a Kbin instance I run. Cross-posting our stance on Threads for visibility.
As Meta’s new App Threads has now launched, it’s important that I definitively state our stance on blocking federation with Meta if they choose to adopt ActivityPub:
Kbin Cafe will not be preemptively fediblocking Meta. However, I’ll be keeping a close watch on the situation as it unfolds, with my finger hovering over the block button. My first priority is the integrity and safety of the community, and with this in mind there won’t be any second chances given to Meta–their first strike results in a block.
Efforts are being coordinated by @tchambers and others to build out Fediverse test suites to ensure that all new actors (like Threads) that claim ActivityPub compliance have to prove their claims or be shown where they are lacking. That is the one real defense against “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” plays by any large actor. To join in and help with this, follow this Frendica group here:
https://kbin.cafe/m/[email protected]
This ActivityPub Test Suite needs to happen ASAP, so any dev support is welcome!
As always, feel free to comment here or message me with any questions or concerns.
What do you consider a “strike”? Does Meta’s reputation and history not constitute a “strike”?
Good question! By and large, some of the following would count as a “strike”:
Poor moderation
Excessive spam
Most importantly: Making non-backwards compatible changes to the ActivityPub specification that may lead to the classic “Embrace, extend, extinguish” situation
Probably more…
Does Meta not already have a long history of poor moderation?
Threads as it exists now is poorly moderated in that it is 90% shameless self-promotional commercial content.
If your instance doesn’t have a policy against horrible undisclosed commercial promotion, I want nothing to do with it. If it does, Threads already has hundreds of thousands of strikes.
Poor moderation like not moderating hate speech or punishing users for wanting accessibility?
By all accounts they haven’t even federated yet and it’s full of corporate spam.
I’d say any automated/integrated effort to direct users of federated instances to the threads site to view content should count as a strike. (Such as needing to go directly to the threads site to view an image that could be easily posted anyway.)
So should any automated/integrated effort to encourage users to make their own threads account. (Such as needing an account to visit this link or view this image.)
Any attempt to coerce non threads users to sign any sort of agreement or TOS with threads.
As well as any data collection on non threads users. Merely interacting with a federated threads account should not entitle meta to any data collection of that user.
is it even possible to federate with them without receiving thousands of posts per minute of barely moderated content that would drown everything else in the feed?
That’s the shift into “Extend” - they won’t do this until their Embrace phase has enmeshed their users with other fediverse users so that defederation affects people’s subscriptions.
I’m actually hoping Google or Microsoft or Apple etc create a compatible activity pub based service. That would create balance and make ‘extend’ problematic for meta.
I also think we need state actors and universities to start using Mastodon (not Twitter) - again that would make it difficult for Meta to deviate from standards.