Discussion: Support the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact

We may not all agree on whether to defederate from Threads.net, but proactively Limiting a very large instance that is expected to have its own moderation problems seems like a common sense measure.

As I expressed before, I am full on to cut every possible link with Facebook/Meta/Threads because of their documented bad behavior and it's impact for our society.This is, for ethical and pragmatic reasons. If this is the 1st level we can agree, I'm on for it.

I like this approach because it essentially is a choice to not amplify Threads content. That feels appropriate starting point to me.

I feel like it's too early to preemptively limit this instance. I agree meta is terrible but they haven't done anything yet in this instance, and there are people on Threads I want to be able to interact with from my social.coop account. I say, keep an eye on them, but limiting them now seems a bit extreme. We can always do so later if needed. If people want to block the instance now, they can already do that individually.

Same argument as previously stated. I don't trust Facebook, we have to keep an eye on them, they may indeed do something wrong. However, there is potential for good here, however naive, and it makes send to see what happens and once it's clear, THEN limit them. I don't see the value of "performative anger".

Seems like an appropriate level of caution to start with. We can move towards a stricter or looser policy from there, as we get more evidence of how Threads behaves itself.

Seems to be the prepratory step to voting to SUSPEND, ie.. defederate.

I agree with limiting Threads.net as it allows users to individually decide how they interact with the instance while keeping it at arms length. I don't trust Meta as a company, but I don't want to fully defederate from the instance completely as I'd like to connect with friends & family and then try and convince them to move instance :)

I think limiting is the least we could do to prevent being flooded with abuse the moment Threads starts federating, while also giving individual members the chance to interact with people they trust.

Limiting is also a decision that's easily reversible. So if Meta surprises us and actually turns out to be a well-run good citizen of the fediverse, then we can lift this measure accordingly. I highly doubt that will happen, but it might be good to have the option just in case.

There seems to be a lot of antipathy toward Threads on our server and I think this is a reasonable way to address that, at least as an initial action.

I think this is a very reasonable compromise. As someone opposed to fully defederating (I want to be able to follow people on Threads while staying on Social.coop), I hope that this approach helps satisfy those with concerns about welcoming Meta to the fediverse uncritically.

I think a good follow on to this poll, if it passes, is whether we should suspend Threads if it comes online in the Fediverse.

I'm strongly in favor of any proposal that approaches recognizing Threads.net as a threat actor. If this is the closest we can get, I'm for it.

I feel the question is whether to defederate or not, or possibly a choice of whether to federate with Threads at all, and I think this should be done in the same manner as other cases.

I think limiting is wise, especially given a lot of people’s apprehension about this. I’m glad it won’t be a full suspend.

Can we explicitly add that removing the limit is not off the table?

Helping meet quorum

Limiting is my preferred solution, as I would like to follow any friends of mine who are on Threads but also respect/share the desire to minimize Threads' impact on the Fediverse.

This is way over my head.

Caution is warranted. Do good first then we can see!

I appreciate the efforts by people on this thread to find a solution that works for a large group of people. I could live with this scenario, but I prefer not to.

It comes back to the harm we are seeking to avoid. If we think Threads users will be bad actors, limiting (or defederation) is a good policy. But if we think the harm is that Meta will extend surveillance to our users, limiting (or defederation) doesn't address that problem.

Imin favor of blocking completely. However, lanking consensus on that, I'm willing to support limiting it.

This is worse than fully allowing or disallowing folks to connect with Threads users - it’ll add confusion and not really achieve the same outcomes either

I personally currently disagree with limiting the instance before it exists, but I also think it's a sensible proposal and much better than defederating outright; so I'm happy to effect this as a member of the CWG group if it passes.

I am in favor of choice, so long as the safety of our coop members is valued above convenience. I have zero problem defederating Threads preemptively, but so long as that option will be able to be considered in the future (ie it's not off the table with passage of this proposal), I will support this proposal now as it provides the best possible (for now) stance on Meta and their entrance into the Fediverse.

I don’t think the threat necessitates preemptive action.

It seems like a good middle ground and would hopefully protect against abuse until Meta shows their true colors.

More importantly this would allow some choice for users. User choice is good.

This seems like a very reasonable approach to me.

I've revised my response to "agree" - it's not my preference, but I could live with this setup. We should be clear that our policy could be revised (either towards defederation, or toward opening) based on the behaviors of Threads and users.

I dislike Meta, but I have yet to see data showing that Threads content is so problematic as to justify preemptively limiting before they even federate If that data exists, Limit seems like a great first step. Barring that data, I disagree with taking action. Instead, Threads federation should be closely monitored if/when it happens.

Additionally, Threads joining the fediverse could be a boon, making it accessible to significantly more people and locking in ActivityPub as the protocol.

Due to the network effects of social networks, I believe that even limiting Threads increases the value of Threads, which is not something I want to be a part of in any way. I would rather something operated by Meta be completely off in its own virtual dystopia, than with an opt-in bridge to go over there. Also I believe that Meta will do any and everything to harvest any type of data that crosses over to Threads, as this is typical for the company which has no regard for user privacy.

This seems like a sensible compromise. Once Chains actually starts federating over AP, we'll be able to gather some data on how that's affected social.coop members, which will then inform any further moderation actions relating to it.

I think "Limit" accomplishes a reasonable compromise: it lets users follow trusted, good actors on Threads, while mitigating the risk of bad actors harming our community.

As I understand it, "limit" does not remove any functionality from individual users. It's just a denial of collective support for the limited instance.