Can I come in?
Would you invite a vampire in your house? No, me neither.
Jay Peters reporting for The Verge:
"Threads will now let people like and see replies to their Threads posts that appear on other federated social media platforms, the company announced on Tuesday."
and
"Previously, if you made a post on Threads that was syndicated to another platform like Mastodon, you wouldn’t be able to see responses to that post while still inside Threads. That meant you’d have to bounce back and forth between the platforms to stay up-to-date on replies."
I am on a Mastodon instance that chose not to federate with Threads while it was still called "Project92." I support this decision, not because I dislike exchange and interoperability, but because my instance, along with others who signed the pact, has nothing meaningful to gain from connecting with Threads. In contrast, Meta will benefit significantly from interoperability with the Fediverse.
https://fedipact.veganism.social/ with an interactive UI
Other instances that have signed the Fedipact share a similar approach. Federating with Threads is like inviting a vampire in. It all starts cordially but can quickly turn into a disaster, faster than you can say "Oh Christ."
Meta is also a cesspool of humanity. It brings everyone into the same space, and lets them fight it out, much like gladiators in the Roman Colosseum—it's survival of the fittest.
The only defenses victims have to manage this chaotic meltdown are moderators and algorithms, both of which have proven ineffective. Once Facebook’s survival depends on ignoring abuse and chaos, users will be on the receiving end of Facebook's enshittification.
In contrast, the Fediverse is not built on the exploitation of others. Its decentralized nature allows users to find a home without fear of being torn apart. Multiple instances create opportunities for safety and security, strengthened by instance administrators who enforce rules with strong principles.
Although it may seem similar to "moderation," as practiced by Facebook, it’s quite different. An admin owns the instance and decides what content is allowed. Having a smaller instance size helps maintain oversight and control. While you can access the Fediverse, managing behavior within your instance provides better control. Instances offer an additional layer of safety and security that helps prevent abuse.
Federating with Threads is a one-way street, with a drum roller coming your way. If you want or need to be on Threads or Bluesky, you can do that, but it doesn’t mean the Fediverse is obliged to let them in.
And it shouldn’t. Zuckerberg laid out Facebook’s business model during his Harvard years. To understand this better, have a look into Facemash, Facebook’s predecessor. It was a "hot-or-not" website created by entitled young men with too much testosterone and a severe lack of common decency and respect for others.
The algorithm scraped ID photos of female undergraduates (essentially hacking) from the university’s online directories and presented users with pairs of women to rank who was “hotter.” The homepage declared: “Were we let in for our looks? No. Will we be judged on them? Yes,”
The sexual objectification was more important than giving these women a chance to provide their explicit consent. We're talking about a mock-up of what was to become Facebook and Zuck already had issues with respecting other peoples rights to privacy.
The sexual objectification of these women took precedence over giving them a chance to provide explicit consent. This was a mock-up of what would become Facebook, and Mark Zuckerberg already had a history of disrespecting people's privacy rights.
Contributors to Wikimedia projects
There was a complaint, and Zuckerberg appeared before the Administrative Board… but nothing happened. The site was taken offline, and he received only a slap on the wrist for violating computer use policies. He was allowed to remain at Harvard, despite protests from groups such as Fuerza Latina and the Harvard Association of Black Women.
As a final insult, Zuckerberg recorded the data-scraping process and posted about it on his blog. In one entry, he wrote:
"The Kirkland Facebook [referring to the Kirkland House intranet, not THE Facebook] is open on my computer desktop, and some of these people have pretty horrendous Facebook pics. I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive."
Zuckerberg insisted to the Ad Board that he had not intended to “insult” anyone. As he student newspaper, the Crimson, reported,
"The programming and algorithms that made the site function were Zuckerberg’s primary interest in creating it."
The purpose of Facemash was to create a tool, and the fact that it used the images of fellow students was incidental.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creator-survives-ad-board-the/
That would serve as Facebook's justification many times in the future. He's just making tools; it's the 'others' that abuse it.
Maybe that's okay in the techbro culture, which often seems to be populated by privileged, arrogant, self-centered, and condescending little pricks. However, in the real world, such behavior is called narcissism. It's certainly not someone you would want to invite into your circles. No wonder some instances don't want his stuff around.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/4/hot-or-not-website-briefly-judges/?page=1
Extras
Zuckerberg let the domain facemash.com expire in 2007.
https://techcrunch.com/2010/10/05/facemash-sale/
The domain facemash.com sold for 30.000€.
https://flippa.com/blog/mark-zuckerbergs-facemash-com-sells-for-over-30000-on-flippa/
The history of the Facebook founders:
https://observer.com/2024/02/facebook-turns-20-founders-today/
Whois information about the site facemash
https://www.whois.com/whois/facemash.com