this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
259 points (92.7% liked)
Fediverse
28490 readers
926 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
5 is an absolutely horrible idea.
1 and 2 are best
I tend to agree but there may be some small and especially vulnerable communities which need the privacy. I don't know but I'm happy as long as everyone gets to have an instance which suits them.
Not that 1 and 2 are best though. 2 and 3 unless you want to be drowning in swastikas and child porn.
If there's no such thing as authentication when you view posts, you have no privacy anyway. Everything you post online can be seen by anyone and archived anytime. It's not like you have privacy when you post now.
For many people, it's not about whether people can take the effort to see what they've posted online. It's whether people who would harass them have a friction-free path to do so, and Threads is such a path. It will be all but totally unmoderated with respect to hate and harassment, and will be the biggest Nazi bar on the block.
Protecting the vulnerable means keeping the assholes away. If we can't care about the vulnerable, then I guess we deserve Zuck.
Why do you think it will be unmoderated? Keep in mind I have very little exposure to Instagram and less for Threads itself.
Because it already is.
Facebook (owned by Meta) has a clear history of allowing deadly medical and political disinformation to spread to the point where we elected someone that sold our state secrets to the highest bidder, and millions of people died from a SARS virus.
Because effectively moderating hundreds of millions of active users is expensive and unprofitable, and because we can look at Meta's existing platforms to see what their standards of moderation are.
Anecdotal statements from people using Threads suggests otherwise.
I think you're confusing "removes content that bothers the social hegemony" and moderation.
Why do people keep pretending data is what you choose to post publicly but not also your name, email address, phone number, health records, financial records, and web history?
Mastodon has no data to give them other than what I choose to publish on the platform.
This isn't about privacy and data. This is about Meta creating toxic environments and making a profit off encouraging racists and bigots.
Taps the thread title.
Doesn't authenticated fetch kinda fix that? If users have the option to make their account private except to logged in other users, and if the server enables authenticated fetch to reject access from blocked / de-federated servers, then only logged in users from servers the server grants access to federate with will be able to view the content. That seems like some useful measure of privacy at least.
The whole point of this is that I want my instance to federate with threads. I want to be able to interact with my friends on there from the safety of the fediverse. I don't want to have Mastodon for Mastodon and Mastodon for Threads. I want Mastodon for the Fediverse.
I want my instance to federate too. But I respect that other people want differently and that's fine. We don't need to tear each other apart.
But that's exactly what option 5 would do, tear each other apart.
Not unless they send over spies to badmouth us?
... what? How will defederating help that?