The examples I listed were to demonstrate the fact that meta/FB is a bad actor, not that all are applicable to lemmy.
Also, the lemmy.world team admitted that lemmy lacks the moderation tools required for federation with threads.
This doesn’t pair well with the extremist content popular and promoted on threads. And I’m tired of hearing about the false solution people keep pretending exists in the form of personally blocking instances.
That may solve me not seeing the content, but what about my fellow users? What about people browsing without a profile/not signed in?
I care about more than myself. I care about the health of fellow human beings on this site, and I don’t want Threads to increase the amount of radicalization and extremism on this site. I don’t want more people to fall victim to radicalization. I have lost family to qanon/maga cults and I think we need to protect the integrity of the fediverse.
When players like threads/meta try to join in, I believe it is the responsibility of admins of the large instances to protect their users and refuse to federate with them. Period.
Okay but, we all know that already. This discussion is about federating with Lemmy/Fedi.
Tell that to the astroturfers simping for FB/Threads…
And do you understand how you reinforce an argument with supporting evidence? I wanted to establish factual information supporting a clear history of the company’s bad practices. That was/is relevant to consideration of federating with a platform.
In fact, lemmy.world has already defederated with instances due to failure to moderate far-right extremism. So why would they federate with Threads when far-right extremism is already a systemic issue and they have admitted lemmy lacks the necessary moderation tools to manage Threads federation?
It seems obvious to me that is a bad idea and it would cultivate a more toxic user experience with more recruitment for radicalism/extremism.
I wasn’t referring to people disagreeing with me. I upvoted users I disagreed with in this post’s comments to promote discussion (such as upvoting your downvoted comment here).
I was referring to people that engage in disingenuous argumentative tactics clearly pushing an agenda, whose presence is also accompanied by what seems like blatant vote manipulation/brigading. This was present when Threads federation was originally a being discussed a little while back. That’s what I was referring to.
I don’t think I’m going to go out of my way to track down examples, but you may be able to find some from the link to where my comment is originally from.
You can also assume I’m wrong, and that’s okay by me. But astroturfing is absolutely a tactic Meta employs. Source
There’s no hypocrisy; you’re just stating a false equivalence. Not to mention totally ignoring the entire argument about radicalization on threads/inability to moderate it on lemmy.
And you keep stating that my points establishing character in regard to Meta/Threads are irrelevant, but you aren’t making a good argument as to why. You fixate on that as a strawman argument while ignoring my point that lack of moderation on threads will negatively affect fediverse communities with toxic/extremist content.
You’re arguing like a petulant middle schooler with ad hominem and strawman tactics. Get back to me if you can speak like a grown-up. Otherwise I’m not going to engage with you. (Before you “no u” me with another false equivalence, my remarks were not on the same personal attack level.)
It does seem like your goal here is to limit what other people can see, rather than curating your own individual experience. Do you believe that I should have similar influence on what content you are allowed to interact with?
I believe the users within instances should play a role in the instances’ decisions on the topic. I believe you should have as much say as I do in arguing your perspective.
I’m simply making a case for why I think it is the wrong decision. I believe Threads should be treated like exploding heads and not be federated with.
If you want to see such content, you still can. You can subscribe to that source, an instance federating with it, or host your own instance. But refusing to federate with it insulates the community from propoganda, misinformation, and radicalization.
deleted by creator
The examples I listed were to demonstrate the fact that meta/FB is a bad actor, not that all are applicable to lemmy.
Also, the lemmy.world team admitted that lemmy lacks the moderation tools required for federation with threads.
This doesn’t pair well with the extremist content popular and promoted on threads. And I’m tired of hearing about the false solution people keep pretending exists in the form of personally blocking instances.
That may solve me not seeing the content, but what about my fellow users? What about people browsing without a profile/not signed in?
I care about more than myself. I care about the health of fellow human beings on this site, and I don’t want Threads to increase the amount of radicalization and extremism on this site. I don’t want more people to fall victim to radicalization. I have lost family to qanon/maga cults and I think we need to protect the integrity of the fediverse.
When players like threads/meta try to join in, I believe it is the responsibility of admins of the large instances to protect their users and refuse to federate with them. Period.
deleted by creator
Tell that to the astroturfers simping for FB/Threads…
And do you understand how you reinforce an argument with supporting evidence? I wanted to establish factual information supporting a clear history of the company’s bad practices. That was/is relevant to consideration of federating with a platform.
In fact, lemmy.world has already defederated with instances due to failure to moderate far-right extremism. So why would they federate with Threads when far-right extremism is already a systemic issue and they have admitted lemmy lacks the necessary moderation tools to manage Threads federation?
It seems obvious to me that is a bad idea and it would cultivate a more toxic user experience with more recruitment for radicalism/extremism.
No one is astroturfing lemmy. People who disagree with you are not paid actors. They just disagree with you.
I wasn’t referring to people disagreeing with me. I upvoted users I disagreed with in this post’s comments to promote discussion (such as upvoting your downvoted comment here).
I was referring to people that engage in disingenuous argumentative tactics clearly pushing an agenda, whose presence is also accompanied by what seems like blatant vote manipulation/brigading. This was present when Threads federation was originally a being discussed a little while back. That’s what I was referring to.
I don’t think I’m going to go out of my way to track down examples, but you may be able to find some from the link to where my comment is originally from.
You can also assume I’m wrong, and that’s okay by me. But astroturfing is absolutely a tactic Meta employs. Source
TikTok is significantly larger and more worth it then lemmy
Yes you are; you’ve been a lame-ass anti-disestablisment shill the entire time you’ve been here. Shut the hell up.
I do in fact disagree with you, yes. I am not, however, paid for it
It doesn’t make you any less of a shill.
We’re talking about astroturfing, so yes it is quite literally the difference.
You’re not guaranteed a place where your opinions are the only ones expressed, ever in life.
deleted by creator
There’s no hypocrisy; you’re just stating a false equivalence. Not to mention totally ignoring the entire argument about radicalization on threads/inability to moderate it on lemmy.
And you keep stating that my points establishing character in regard to Meta/Threads are irrelevant, but you aren’t making a good argument as to why. You fixate on that as a strawman argument while ignoring my point that lack of moderation on threads will negatively affect fediverse communities with toxic/extremist content.
You’re arguing like a petulant middle schooler with ad hominem and strawman tactics. Get back to me if you can speak like a grown-up. Otherwise I’m not going to engage with you. (Before you “no u” me with another false equivalence, my remarks were not on the same personal attack level.)
It does seem like your goal here is to limit what other people can see, rather than curating your own individual experience. Do you believe that I should have similar influence on what content you are allowed to interact with?
I believe the users within instances should play a role in the instances’ decisions on the topic. I believe you should have as much say as I do in arguing your perspective.
I’m simply making a case for why I think it is the wrong decision. I believe Threads should be treated like exploding heads and not be federated with.
If you want to see such content, you still can. You can subscribe to that source, an instance federating with it, or host your own instance. But refusing to federate with it insulates the community from propoganda, misinformation, and radicalization.