I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of us are here to avoid another corporate takeover of our preferred platforms. It would seem to me to be a tad irresponsible to allow Facebook into our space with open arms, allowing them to hoover up our data. I would love to keep using Lemmy.world, but will happily change instances if need be, and I feel many share that sentiment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 15 points 10 months ago (4 children)

This is like saying "my email provider should block all emails from Gmail".

And they can hoover your data right now. Like, you think bots aren't spidering the site already? It's a public website.

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I actually think this demonstrates the exact problem. The reason you can't do that at the email level is because Google has taken over the entire email space. Ideally, we don't let threads do that.

Nowadays you have services like Outlook blocking emails Tutanota for "spam protection". I'd really rather threads not get so big that they can start dictating how the Feduverse operates in that fashion.

As I said down thread, the easiest way to get information with the structure of activity pub is to have a bunch of users and that is because the only way information gets transmitted to a server is by caching it based on post interactions.

That is exactly what millions of thread users in the Fedeverse would accomplish.

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Would email be better if you couldn't send/receive emails from people with Gmail accounts?

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It would objectively be more secure in terms of data privacy.

Better, in that regard, is subjective. It sure wouldn't be more convenient, but that's why we left Reddit and came to Lemmy in the first place. It sure wasn't because of convenience.

[–] beetus@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

objectively be more secure in terms of data privacy

Please elaborate how email would be objectively more secure if you could block Gmail.

You can already block Gmail today from any other provider by putting a filter on incoming @gmail addresses. How does that make email more secure?

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Yeah I'm not going to criticize anyone for not liking Google. Google's done plenty to sour people on them. But this is just the height of ignorant flailing.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We do this all the time. Email providers block millions of domains for spam.

[–] kpw@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't see any spam from threads.net.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

I consider most content on Facebook owned sites to be useless spam.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Not yet anyway. I wouldn't expect that to stay the same forever though. Especially considering the amount of spam that's already on Facebook.

Facebook does not have good very good moderation on their platforms (it's only good enough to keep up their image in the public eye), and I don't think threads will be an exception to that.

I feel like it'll probably be one of the bigger sources of spam and hate speech on the Fediverse, at least for servers that don't block it.

[+] ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat -6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

That's entirely different. As an individual, I have the choice to send emails to, or block emails from, Gmail.com.

But on Lemmy, if I am on an instance that federates with Threads, and I don't want Threads.net to get a copy of my content or posts (or have my content or posts show up on Threads.net in the future), then tough shit for me, my only option is to either go silent or move to an instance that has defederated from Threads.

People keep making the email argument, but it is not the same thing at all. I don't think it's fair for a large percentage of lemmy.world's users to not have a voice in a decision that will absolutely impact them, nor is it fair to have a stance of "then leave then."

[–] kpw@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If a user blocks a domain I suppose their content isn't send to that server anymore I hope?

[–] ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It is. The user just won't see any content from the server they blocked.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

They won't see any communities from the server they block. Users are not blocked in domain blocking.

Users can now block instances. Similar to community blocks, it means that any posts from communities which are hosted on that instance are hidden. However the block doesn’t affect users from the blocked instance, their posts and comments can still be seen normally in other communities.

[–] kpw@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

How do you know? We should fix this on the software level.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Nope Lemmy's blocking system is cosmetic only. It's very much useless against defending from real malicious users. I assume the purpose it was built for was under the assumption that it was going to be used exclusively by easily offended snowflakes, which is backed up by the way that most users treat a person's claims regarding a malicious user or malicious instance.