BraveSirZaphod

The funny thing about Lemmygrad people is that you could tell me that this comment was an intentional caricature and it’d seem just as likely as it being genuine.

If you want to stay private, probably avoid a networking protocol like ActivityPub that inherently relies on essentially everything being public

I’m not saying that the terms can’t be more transparent, because they absolutely can be.

But if you have become aware of this practice and you continue to participate, you have de facto agreed to it. You can of course agree to the terms and continue to criticize them, but you don’t get to sign up for a soccer game and then claim that the rules against using your hands don’t actually apply to you. If you don’t want to face the consequences of how distributed services like this fundamentally work, don’t use them.

I mean, yes?

If you do not agree to the terms of a service, do not use the service. This is the case for essentially every system ever. You can go complain about it on Reddit or something if you like.

Ok, you mean I could be getting paid to not panic about Threads? If you have a referral link, I’d greatly appreciate it!

Implying that anyone who disagrees with you must be a paid shill is not the rhetorical dunk you apparently think it is.

This may be a cynical view, but even if that does happen, the core ActivityPub protocol will still be intact and at worst be relegated to a small community of tech nerds, which is to say, basically the status quo.

Facebook, and literally anyone else, can already get all your content.

It would take all of a second to scrape your user page. Obviously that wouldn’t grant your IP address or anything, but neither would federation.

It’s publicly sitting on the internet.

Meta also doesn’t need to federate in order to do that, since federation just accesses public data.

Mate I think people are just kinda lazy and don’t really care that much about privacy relative to ease of use and the presence of people they’re interested in.

You’ll be able to call them third party users as well, if that’s something that you’re really super sensitive to.

The point of the article is to appeal to people’s hatred of Meta (which is well-earned, admittedly), not to actually say anything meaningful.

Having observed conversations about Threads here and on Lemmy, it’s a pretty dependable tactic. I completely understand not wanting to associate with Meta and not trusting their intentions, but there are plenty of things to criticize them for without trying to whip up a fury over what’s objectively not problematic. But this is the internet and people like being in a fury, so whip one up they will.

Kbin collects all of that same info from Lemmy and vice versa (except for IP, which I don’t think would ever be shared to begin with?).

The literal entire point of the fediverse is to share content in a public and interoperable way, so why are you surprised that a fediverse client would be collecting profile pictures and posts, when that’s exactly what you’d need to do in order to display them?

Like, if you simply have no trust in Meta at all and refuse to interact with them, that’s fine, but just say that and don’t pretend it’s because of the horror of displaying usernames.

I think they were rushing it to try to take advantage of Twitter’s X-plosion. From my understanding, it was a bit of a mad dash behind the scenes to get to the initial release.

Do you have any evidence that the placement in algorithmic timeline was monetized? They have said that they expect to eventually roll out advertising, but for now at least, there aren’t any (explicitly inserted) ads.

I’ve noticed that the Following tab for me is kinda empty since a lot of people I’m following aren’t posting much yet. I think the algorithmic view was mostly there to prevent the app from feeling like a ghost town as it was getting started.

It feels like all the mainstream centralized social platforms and search engines (Google) are censoring any updates on reddit’s status to maintain a status quo.

Consider taking the tinfoil hat off mate. Try to think about this logically - what seems to be the more likely explanation as to why you haven’t seen many articles? That there haven’t been any significant developments - which is simply true - and thus there haven’t been many news stories about them, or that Google has decided to actively censor stories that do not exist about events which have not happened.

I’d love to understand your reasoning; it seems very interesting.

Or, and I know this can be a difficult concept to grasp, some people may simply disagree that blanket defederation is absolutely necessary.

I’m certainly skeptical of Meta’s intentions, and if they do start federating, I’ll probably make an account on a non-federated instance as well, but this idea of “Anyone who disagrees with me must be a shill” really isn’t an attitude that’s particularly alluring.

Genuinely, are you asking why people like social media in general?

For one reason or another, they find the platform to be some combination of useful or entertaining and a good way to connect with people they care about. If you don’t otherwise have significant personal issues about advertising, it’s not an unreasonable position to think that the pros outweigh the cons, even if you have different priorities.

I wouldn’t say it’s force-feeding for a news site to report on the highly successful launch of a new social network by one of the largest tech companies in the world that’s also directly aiming to compete with a platform owned by a very controversial and frankly entertaining megalomaniac.

If anything, I’d say they’re a poor news organization if they didn’t cover it.

There’s a pretty large chunk of people in tech circles like this that really delight in a superiority complex about how much smarter they are than the common rabble, and it’s more than a little off-putting.

Least of all because it reminds me of myself as the most insufferable kind of edgelord that I was back in high school.