所有
41% of fediverse instances have blocked threads so far!!!
41% of fediverse instances have blocked threads so far!!!
tech.lgbt
fedipact.online (@FediPact@tech.lgbt)
559 评论
-
-
Yay ban evasion?
Sorry if that's not you, see you soon if it is.
-
"Joined 6 hours ago"
🤔🤔🤔
-
And much like Barney above, they'll keep coming back.
-
-
I love how people check these kinds of things on here
-
-
You should do something constructive with your anger, child.
-
-
-
fuck off nazi
-
-
-
That's an awful lot of words to say "yes, that's me".
Get some help.
-
-
Arguments are used in debate, this isn't really one.
Honestly, this meme was just a hunch and I'd love to be proven wrong. -
Why would everything posted in this comment section have to do with the post, especially if it's a response to another comment instead of directly to the post?
-
When we're arguing about what should and shouldn't be allowed on the Fediverse, ad hominem is relevant, because it proves that you already don't speak for anyone else
-
-
-
Shut up
-
The irony of this response is palpable.
-
Careful my guy, you might get censorshipped!
-
I’ve been vaccinated, I’m okay!
-
-
If you're not going to contribute anything but your rage, you should shut up. This is what the downvote button is for.
-
-
No, the downvote is meant to be for things that don't contribute to the discussion, not for things you disagree with.
-
Is this documented for Lemmy or just grandfathered from Reddit?
Not all instances even support upvotes. Some only support downvotes. Does every instance have to agree on the meaning?
-
Good question. The documentation says:
On the left side of each post there are up and down arrows, which let you upvote or downvote it. You can upvote posts that you like so that more users will see them. Or downvote posts so that they are less likely to be seen.
which doesn't really back me up.
My downvote principle was meant more generally - most places that have a downvote policy say that it's not meant for shouting down people you disagree with, since that's not conducive for civil and nuanced conversations.
-
I understand the point (especially if some can't use downvotes) but I hope the alternative isn't something like this post, because I don't think I've ever seen a less civil one.
-
You’ve never heard anything less civil than “shut up”? You live a very sheltered life if that’s the case.
-
-
Why does “shut up” to a stupid comment bring out this nastiness from you? Why are you so angry?
-
-
-
-
-
-
That's the ideal, but we all know that's not how the majority of people use it.
-
-
-
Upvotes and downvotes are only there to tell people with no wrinkles how they should feel about a post. It creates a preconceived bias.
Shut up.
-
-
-
nobody's making you be here
-
-
-
-
That is not censorship, my smooth friend. Nobody is censoring anybody in this context.
If you turn your tv off during a newscast are you censoring the broadcaster?
-
-
give them a break its the only power they have
-
-
-
-
you dont want big company to be associated with fediverse you’re a nazi
-
-
-
Go suck on Zucks nips. We're just blocking garbage
-
If the Threads-blocking instances have this level of maturity, I don't think we'll be missing much. Being equally childish as Facebook comments is impressive.
-
-
I'd throw some articles showing user counts, but you'd probably just call them fake.
But if you are actually curious, I can gladly provide some. There was just recently a big influx of users with the EU launch, a tagging system was recently introduced, and more and more large creators have continued to migrate over.
-
-
Buh bye! Go to threads then, I seriously dont care.
Facebook has shown time and time again they can not be trusted with anything.
From spreading miss information to starting a coup and every shitty thing between.
-
Already there actually and have had a pretty good experience, though it doesn't scratch that same Reddit-style itch nor is it trying to. It's chilling at somewhere around 100 million users, so I'm not the only one.
-
-
-
Honestly, with the user level blocking feature in personally against instance level blocking as well.
- I strong believe in user choice. It's clear from this thread that there isn't an overwhelming majority in favor of instance blocking threads. There does not appear to be one that's not in favor.
1a) if the instance held a vote on the matter id naturally accept the majority choice.
- if privacy is a concern (which it should be because Facebook), we're already screwed. Fediverse interactions (comments posts votes) are a matter of public record. So even if we block threads at the instance level, they can still zuck up our data so we're not really gaining anything there.
Edit: if you're going to down ote, be better than reddit and expand your thoughts. We're here to discuss, not act like
childrenredditors-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html
https://time.com/6217730/myanmar-meta-rohingya-facebook/
You're also forgetting that defederating means that Threads has no interaction with the fediverse meaning they can only do as much damage as a user can to those instances
-
Honest question, how would they be able to do damage via the federation protocol?
My understanding was that it sends data regarding posts comments and actions to all servers.
The closest I thought I had was some kind of instance ban but while that gets federated, it doesn't result in a ban elsewhere
Instance a bans user foobar Instance b sees this information but foobar is not banned by instance b.
We saw some of that with the hexbear drama a couple of months back
-
-
-
-
559 评论