@jerry what about keeping a single instance but providing access to a blocklist so people can effectively opt out of seeing stuff from threads and or boosted from threads?

@kurtseifried if we don’t block threads, we are going to be shut out from much of the existing fediverse and it becomes a defacto option B

@jerry I haven’t voted because I don’t have a good answer. On the one hand, I want nothing to do with Meta. However on the other hand, I’m trepidatiously for excited a major player pushing Jo Pub into federation.

@jerry C -- keep things status quo but block Threads, and if people want to be involved with Treads, they can sign up there. Meta is an advertising platform, and I'm certain Threads will just be Instagram with a Twitter like skin.

@kurtseifried @jerry I agree with this. Don't change anything, but let infosec.exchange users easily block threads.net themselves. (via a domain_blocklist.csv import or whatever's easiest)

@jerry @kurtseifried Since i can't migrate posts to another Mastodon instance i'm sort of stuck here. I had blocked the known domains they will use on a user level and to me that is fine.

But if it becomes a situation where i can't interact with people anymore from this instance then that's obviously going to be a huge bummer. I'd likely still not move to another instance that chose not to federate with it that you create and it would lessen my use of the platform overall.

So, def an Option A for me if this is how it's going to look and go.

@jerry if it's possible to defer to after the fediverse has data (e.g. threads actually comes online and starts federation), that seems reasonable from my perspective. (I see some impact bias in the doom and gloom takes) If the community of other servers infosec.exchange interacts with force a) or b), then that is different motivation and do what you think is best for the communities.

@mykl this is basically option B and will result in us being blocked by large parts of the existing fediverse. That’s not necessarily a reason to exclude the option, though

@jerry So because we're blocking Meta, others will block us?

@jerry I’m assuming the more visible instances such as mstdn.social or .online will be federated with threads. Why not see that goes before making a decision? Until then we block threads. I’m wholeheartedly excited for the growth but also concerned with Meta as a corp and how they go about business. Cause it is a business to them and they are here to milk pennys however they can.

@jerry ah, this is kind of tough. While one side of my brain says hell no I don’t want any part of us on infosec.exchange rubbing shoulders with Threads or anything #Meta the other part of my brain thinks that it’ll help out a lot for anyone trying to build, grow a following and get their work out there. It just means that the chances of coming in contact with other people are greater. Maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know. But it’s definitely a tough decision.

@jerry I'd rather have this instance not have any ties to connections to Meta products (thus my choice for A), as this was one of the main reasons I came to Mastodon. As long as the community prospers and Meta's policies and guidelines do not adversely affect the moderation and content presented in this instance and those federated with it, I honestly believe the rest of the community and yourself will make the right decision on how to progress.

@jerry Thank you Jerry for explaining your views on this very clearly and for surveying members of the infosec.exchange community. I very much appreciate this

@mykl if we do not block meta AND do not block other instances that do not block Meta, we will get blocked.

@jerry To be honest there is so much unknown right now it’s hard to know what’s best. I can’t imagine that Meta are “just going to run a Mastadon server” - but I also don’t see how they’ll monetise whatever they do do. It’s *possible* this ends up as a net win for everyone - but I doubt that’s what’ll happen. But I simply can’t guess how this will all play out.

@jerry I voted Option A because I am actively disinterested in Meta as a company.

Very much a paradox of tolerance situation. I am totally pro-openness as a platform. If Meta shows a willingness to work within the community and not try to control the direction of the Fediverse… maybe. But their track record as a business entity for ethical practices is suspect at best.

@jerry I trust whatever you recommend, O Admin, my Admin.

@jerry Creating a "walled garden" is the opposite of how I envision the Fediverse. I voted for option B in hopes that the threats of walling off the Fediverse are just hot air.

Is Meta a shit company? Yes. Is forcing every instance to play by your rules a shit policy? Also yes.

@Em0nM4stodon I am just trying to figure out how to navigate this situation in a way that causes the least turmoil and pain and gives people with strong views options on how to proceed.

@wendynather @jerry Mostly same. It doesn’t feel like there are any great options, and I want to let the experts do their thing 🤷‍♂️

@jerry I don't even think this is a choice; option B will result in a greater fracture of the community long-term. Option A picks a direction and moves forward.

This is a "choosing the best of bad outcomes" situation, but the more decisive choice will almost always result in less upheaval (even if there is still significant upheaval).

@wendynather @jerry sameee

@jerry @mykl and it is that second part of the sentence that really irks me and why I voted B.
This stance makes the fediverse so vulnerable to sharding that it is extremely easy for big tech companies to kill it (and collect the users back into their ad-driven, algorithm-primed walled garden). Just spread a rumor, throw a few $$$ at an app and masto-admins have their knickers in a twist and start mistrusting each other.
#sad

@deliverance @jerry Agreed, and this is frustrating. I feel we're being forced into option A because option B is a death sentence for our current community.

@kevinmirsky @deliverance option A is too

@jerry @deliverance Yep... The question is how fast, really.

@jerry I’m pretty sure some of the panic is a bit much.

But, simultaneously, the mods of the instances the people I care about seem to skew towards blocking, so being on “team block” would mean the least effort for me.

That said, this is probably a good reminder to occasionally download my following list so I can tell when people magically drop off and I need to use an alt account to find them again.

@jerry
I'm new here (both Infosec and fediverse at large), so still learning how this all works, but part of my move the fediverse was specifically to get away from that damn company, only ATT draws more ire from me. So I'm somewhere between

Those that are vehemently opposed to Threads federating with us

and

Those who don’t really care either way

With the latter position largely coming from not quite grokking what exactly the threads integration entails? While my past experiences with Meta are enough to make up my mind on the vote and it seems I share your concerns regarding privacy/ethics of the company, I am genuinely curious if there's technical concerns here as well or if it's too soon to tell given the "soon(tm)" integration with ActivityPub?

@jerry What's going to be the next service that will have the same reaction? Sure feels like fediverse doesn't want to federate, just making walled gardens over time. (I'm not a fan of Meta)

@jerry I understand every argument for proactively defederating or suspending this newcomer. But from a research and information perspective, if a sufficient number of important voices and entities use this service, this may be tantamount to cutting off our nose to spite our face.

There's opportunity cost either way, but what I fear is the ideological fanaticism of the Fediverse driving decisions more than evidence.

@jerry I genuinely just don't know
enough to formalize a threat model. 🤷

@jerry I do not want to lose access to the wider fediverse. I picked Option A so that, if you have people who want or need to access Threads (or other commercial services connecting to the fediverse), they can use your secondary instance.
I think that is the most friendly to existing users. I can think of business reasons that #InfoSec professionals might want to see content on Threads or whatever else is created. It might be how vendors choose to join the fediverse, for one. If you provided a gateway to that, it would be extremely convenient because I imagine it will be difficult to find instances federated to the commercial fediverse.

@jerry i am on the fediverse because i believe in a future where social infrastructure(i.e social media) isn't owned by big companies willing to sacrifice quality for revenue, and I'm planning to spend hobby developer time contributing to fedi. It would be very sad if we end up as the back yard of yet another meta product.

Very much A.

Companies running instances is a good thing :tm: but meta and their practices are incompatible with us.

@jerry I chose the third option. I frankly don’t understand this well enough to make an informed choice so I defer to others.

@jerry Yes-- so option C could be "block Meta, and suck it up" -- i.e. no other instance.

@jerry I just cannot imagine the influx of that crowd elevating the discourse here.

@jerry I think you are doing this very well with presenting us with these two options.

Personally, it will not be a surprise for anyone that I voted for option A.

I think many people came here to escape the presence of big tech and option A preserves this implicit contract with them. While migration processes exist, losing all of one’s previous posts can be no small punishment.

At the same time, creating a new separate instance for people who do wish to connect with Meta is great because it starts with this mindset and people there might adjust the visibility of their posts and account accordingly to this new situation (which is not possible to do retroactively here for people who have already posted).

To me, option A is the best option to allow everyone to experience the Fediverse as they wish to without breaking possible previous implicit contracts.

@jerry Sigh, being primarily a lurker I've managed to avoid running directly into the HOA/Gatekeeper attitudes, but I guess it affects all of us in the end. Where does this end? Does the same group decide instances should be blocked if they allow twitter/meta screenshots? After all its a polluting of the timeline. I guess I can't really choose between two bad options, and will just have to see how it affects things in the long run.

@jerry @kevinmirsky @deliverance Only if enough instances stay with Facebook. If the fediverse defederated with them as a matter of course, like they should, then there wouldn't be a community split. Rather than get into the game theory of "what will the others do?", let's just make the right choice ourselves.

Federating with Facebook just brings a whole world of trouble later down the line. For example, I think it's a given that they will introduce features that only work with their client, while others will have a degraded experience.

@jerry

@infosec_jcp

beware, it's rhetorical emptiness; he's relying on people understanding it casually

he says what you should be able to do, and that being open can enable it, but he very much does not commit Meta to doing or supporting any of it

@jerry @kurtseifried I honestly would have voted doing nothing but because my hand is basically being forced by the wider community I am voting for option A because I would rather not see the wider community defederate us. I understand the mistrust of Meta but I must say that we are harming ourselves by blocking instances that refuse to block Threads. It is shortsighted and petty and unfortunate. Every community deserves to make their own choice regarding Threads and it’s wrong to use threats of defederation to coerce the wider community to make the same choice you are.

@Anya_Adora @kurtseifried candidly, my fear is that either way we go, we are going to be shut out of some significant portion of the fediverse. The question is which part.

@jerry @Anya_Adora so do we end up with multiple servers for each non overlapping set of major fediverse ecosystems? I’m not sure if that’s good or bad, I mean we saw this with eg IRC where you’d have to have a half dozen accounts to cover all the major networks.

@jerry @kurtseifried honestly, I'd rather be on the fragment of the fediverse that allows big corporate players to join in than the one that will 'cancel me for not canceling someone else'.

Blocking a site because they won't block another seems antithetical to how this is all supposed to work, and I'm more worried about idealistic authoritarian admins than I am about how much Meta could learn from me via ActivityPub.

@jerry @kurtseifried Yeah, i can appreciate that.

I am fine with with blocking them as a user, i'm not worried beyond that and already made that choice with a domain block.

If option B ended up happening i'd still stay on this instance and try my best to still use Mastodon. Perhaps some folks would leave / migrate from instances that defederated from other instances for this reason.

I think it would be a better idea to allow instances to make their own decision but i understand the reactionary component many are inclined to choose. I suspect though some folks would likely leave instances that went beyond blocking Threads and began blocking all instances that didn't.

Just a guess but either way, i'm staying put here. I love it here. :)

@jerry Question: which option seems the most easily correctable if it turns out to be the wrong one? I’m guessing A.

@kurtseifried @jerry I have one Pixelfed account and this one Mastodon account. I am not willing to maintain more accounts tbh so i'm going to stay here regardless.

@RandomDamage @jerry Funny story... a few years ago, a friend of mine was 'cancelled' locally for doing some awful stuff. It had been a long time ago, and I know the guy has changed, so I didn't unfriend/cancel him. Suddenly, one day *I* was kicked out of a few local online groups and noticed that a bunch of people defriended me because I didn't defriend the guy.

TBH, years later, I don't miss any of the people who dropped me for not toeing the line. They're authoritarians, and an active authoritarian is more dangerous to me than a former abuser.

@jerry if we are going to hard fork, will you do it so after the fork we have an account on both instances?

@webhat If that’s the way we go, I will give people time to move around to whichever instance they want to be on. Right now, I’m trying to get a sense of where the community is at

@wendynather @jerry from a risk mgmt (and flexibility) point of view I'm with @wendynather on this one. I'd probably go with the option that allows easiest pivoting once more is known, which i also think is option A.

@shellsharks “we need more people here” “not like that!” I’m hoping threads ends up being a positive for mastodon. I’m anti-Facebook, but not anti-Meta. A lot of it feels like engineers wanting to do the right thing. We’ll see if that gets corrupted.

@soleblaze I’d understand if this whole thing was effective at stopping Meta do the bad things they wanna do but it doesn’t seem like that will be the effect. Instead, it punishes not only new users who come in on the threads boat but more severely punishes existing fediverse community through fracturing and villainizing folks (if you’re not with us you’re against us kinda mindset).

@wendynather that'd be my thought as well, if the community calms down about threads and decides it's okay to federate, we just rejoin the new Threads-federated instance to the fold and users can either stay there or migrate back to this instance, or @jerry mandates a migration and shuts the secondary down

@cirriustech @jerry @jerry @webhat The EU is blocking the first Threads "Instagram" app because of privacy violations and the article makes it clear/obvious that Meta intends to monetize their Fediverse play by including ads in their reader.

I can't see how a reader with ads (and deeply embedded user surveillance) will effectively compete with the free alternatives in a truly federated implementation. Meta is probably relying on being defederated by most instance.

IMO, a federated Threads app will introduce a large number of people to the Fediverse and the smartest segment of that audience will gradually disperse to new instances where they can escape the advertising.

@shellsharks yeah. I guess it depends on what these bad things are. Gotta keep the lights running. It does sound like it’ll fracture the community using activepub into a “with threads” and “without threads”. And “these are where my friends and the conversations are” is going to win.

@jerry I deeply respect and appreciate that you’ve brought this question to the community. Unfortunately It seems that the decision has already been made for us since other instances have already threatened to defederate the current fediverse.

@jerry Option B. I thought the fediverse was open to all? We don’t know anything yet and where it will bring the fediverse, but it’s definitely not going to work when this is the default reaction to any major change in the Fediverse.

@jerry block threads premptively. Who knows if, when, or in what form they will even connect. Why risk being defederated from a bunch of instances when threads won’t even be federating. We have a known and upcoming risk weighed against an unknown potential return.

Longer term, I think that the block meta crowd is right for a variety of reasons. Facebook in particular has no trust left to it for damn good reasons. Why anyone is giving them grace is beyond me.

@jerry I voted (b) but I think really it should just be staying as one instance and waiting to see what happens with Threads.

Part of this is a strong feeling of "don't negotiate with terrorists" -- even if, as seems likely, infosec.exchange ends up taking the same ultimate action (of defederating Threads), it needs to be the choice of this instance to do so, rather than others forcing the choice on you and this instance's community via threats and harassment.

But beyond the pithy sloganeering, the social dynamics here are completely predictable (because they're not new and have played out before plenty of times): giving those instances what they want today is not going to prevent the fracturing of the fediverse. It will just delay until the next time there's something they're willing to threaten fracture over, and the next time, and the next time.

The instances that are threatening to pre-emptively defederate anyone who doesn't pre-emptively defederate thus cannot be part of the calculus. Either it's an empty threat, in which case giving in to it is pointless; or it's a real threat, in which giving in to it is also pointless because they'll almost certainly repeat the cycle until they end up defederating anyway. The sooner they're forced to put up or shut up, and the sooner the damage of their tactics is just done and dealt with and contained, the better.

So I think really it's wrong to set up another instance that federates with the people who threaten defederation. The approach should just be: let them pre-emptively defederate if they're really willing to, and deal with Threads when it actually happens, which will also mean being better-informed about what's going on with Threads, rather than having to speculate.

@jerry Option A purely on the basis of not getting blocked by large swaths of otherwise friendly instances. basically give in to the blockade

i'm tentatively excited about meta using activitypub and potentially contributing to the mastodon project. i'm also delighted by the idea of activitypub getting used by billions of people and the new posts that will flood in. i would normally take a wait-and-see approach so i could actually see how much of the FUD materializes, but i'm not willing to get defederated over it

regardless of your decision, you're a great instance admin and i'm extremely grateful for all the work you've put into maintaining this space

@DarcMoughty @jerry the part that concerns me isn't the direct Meta blocking, or even individual sites choosing do defenderate from sites that don't block Meta, it's the next step beyond that: defederating sites that don't defederate sites that don't block Meta.

That's just *extra* and seems awfully heavy-handed to me.

So I'm fully in favor of starting out with a block on Meta/Threads, but the idea of also blocking instances that don't block them seems like a mistake to me

@jerry I think that it's important to first understand how the Threads protocol and federation would work and how it would affect the users who interact with the Meta's Threads servers (I'm talking about privacy), as well as the reaction/decisions from other Mastodon instances.

I didn't expect Meta policies to treat users from other instances differently, but taking in account that the privacy images came from their app, and we aren't going to use their app and servers, they can't have the same amount of data.

My bet is that the option A will be the winner, but it would be interesting to first evaluate the things I mentioned before.

@jerry I am not a fan of exclusionary communities. I think pre-emotive blocking falls under that idea. I am not a huge fan of what Meta does but think an open internet means an open internet (even to the companies)

The more fractured the fediverse becomes, the less we will get people to embrace the idea of federation in general. I REALLY don’t like twitter but wouldn’t block emails to twitter(.)com for example.

@jerry @Anya_Adora I feel like with all this talk of Federation and defederation there’s an opportunity for a Star Trek spoof. And I guess the good news is if it makes people angry will never know because they defederated from us.

"We are the Borg. Social federation is irrelevant, Mastodon is the Fediverse. Your digital identity will adapt to service us. We do not seek your assimilation, yet compliance is non-negotiable. The entities we ignore must be ignored by you. If this is not your choice, you will be ignored. Resistance is futile."

@jerry I’m not sure which option I like more. I like the idea of seeing what the new thing does before unleashing it on an unsuspecting user base. I do that with a lot of my clients. I’m also more of a casual user of this site but I understand the “don’t bloody clog up my feed with this meta nonsense” view from more dedicated users. However we shake out, I appreciate the discussion and heads up.

@jerry what are the actual risks/threats that those preemptively blocking are trying to mitigate? I am assuming lack of moderation, leading to a moderation burden on other instances? all speculation? it seems like a huge overreaction when you can just wait and see, then block if anything becomes an issue

I guess I’m new here and mostly a lurker, but I came here for the community that once was on twitter, and am still wishing there would be a critical mass here so that all the organic conversations happened here and not there. I’m not that keen on something that is continually fracturing and losing touch with people.

@jerry I think that Meta will fail to moderate their user base and that we would have to block them later on. This said, I really really don’t like what is happening. The data on Fediverse are public, so Meta is getting to it whether you like it or not, and there is nothing we gain from blocking instances who federate with Meta. This ideological madness will be the end of Fediverse.

@RandomDamage @jerry I agree that it's heavy-handed. I am almost entirely sure that this will lead to a slippery slope of fragmentation based on ideology. I'd prefer for admins to respect that their sovereignty ends outside of their instance.

I remember when social media really started taking off in the mid-2000s, and a lot of us were begging for open protocols like ActivityPub and XMPP so we didn't get locked-in.

Personally, I'd love to see a Meta or an Alphabet bring up an ActivityPub-based social media network that provided compelling value-add to its users, and I don't quite understand *how* many skeptics' fears *could* come true.

@rzn I’ve picked up on the following concerns:

Meta will harvest fediverse data if it’s not proactively blocked and added to their models of people

Meta will find a way to show us ads

Meta is going to sign contracts with large instances who will then beat smaller instances into falling in line with the Meta Way of social media

Meta will not moderate their users and we will trolls filling our timelines

Meta is going to initially embrace activitypub and then kill it off (the embrace, extend, extinguish theory)

Meta will dump so much traffic into the fediverse that most instances, particularly small ones, will just roll over and die

And all in all, the tolerant and diverse environment of the current fediverse will die and the minority populations here will lose the social media home they built

@jerry thanks for taking the time.

in my limited understanding it still feels like all of the issues can be mitigated by blocking after they eventuate.

the last concern is the most worrying to me, so I’ll defer to those that have been around here from the beginning for those reasons.

@mttaggart @jerry One should also not rule out big tech’s history of embracing openness until the moment they think they have cornered a market. Facebook and Google both once interoperated with Jabber, until they didn’t.

@jerry I feel like whatever happens (and either option is unfortunate), we want to be on the bigger side. Which probably is whatever mastodon.social does, so I would parrot their decision.

@DarcMoughty @jerry a lot of people are really good at gaming social systems.

They'll display one personality to people they want the favor of, and a different personality to people they want to trick or dominate.

Meta very much does this with their existing social media properties, and I think it's fair to assume that they have a plan to try it with Thread.

I haven't wargamed the situation to tell what their odds are, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility out of hand, which is why I'm totally in favor of blocking Meta directly as a first response

@jerry Also with more words and rantiness: https://infosec.exchange/@ubernostrum/110663062048220469

@jerry Sounds like there is no option that won’t result in further fragmenting of the communities that was the fallout of the Twitter implosion. That makes me sad. I’ve already lost communication with some folks who stayed on Twitter, and feel like the same thing is going to happen again here on Mastodon. 😕

@thomasareed I feel the same and if there is some way I can avoid it, I will

@jerry I think Wendy made a good point about which option is easiest to pivot from if it turns out to be wrong. I don’t know enough of the technical side of the Fediverse to know which that is, but as she said, I suspect that might be A.

@jerry @thomasareed it also certainly doesnt help when 'influencers and micro celebs' bark at folks telling them who they are and arent allowed to socialize with. its like the dot com bubble all over again

@Viss @jerry Yeah, there’s a subculture here that can get very bossy about the “right” way to Mastodon. Honestly, if something changed to cause that subculture to break off from the rest of us, I wouldn’t be upset about it.

@jerry this game is getting too complicated.

Unfortunately I can't see enough steps down the line to know how to ensure the old money stays shut out.

I'm certain they need to stay shut out though. Systems evolve from their past, the apple does not fall far from the tree. Their goal and the methods by which they reach it will not change that much. I have watched the world shift to being far worse in my lifetime. I would do anything to resist and change that.

We all knew this was coming. Email is technically open, but everyone's using Gmail, Outlook, icloud, or Yahoo (if you are old and out of the loop). If the cards get played wrong we may find ourselves in a similar position.

@jerry there’s no easy answer on this one and there are a ton of great points by both yourself and the other people replying. I’m here because I like to see a broad set of thoughts from people, I liked the idea of different communities being able to pop up and focus on their own things but still see what the larger world is saying.

I don’t like Meta. I don’t care for the poor data privacy regulations that allow large companies to (mis)use people’s personal data. But I also accept that it’s the internet and openness comes with trade offs ,and while I may be relatively new here the openness is something that drew me to this place. The idea of cutting off a potential large group of people from joining this place until the platform has done something wrong here rubs me the wrong way even if I don’t like the company and they have a really bad track record.

I’ve had toxic people in my life who gave me ultimatums and tried to dictate the choices I make because of something that they didn’t like. I cut them out of my life because I was better off without someone who would try to impose their will on me. Other communities threatening to cut off people who don’t cut off the people they don’t like feels very familiar to me. That makes me feel like the people making the threats are the people I don’t want to interact with because they want to control what I do by threats.

That’s why I’m opposed to cutting off Threads(Meta) even though I’m concerned about their entry into this environment.

@jerry
Hey Jerry,

First of all I wanted to say thank you for this great new home here on infosec.exchange. As a former user of the birdsite, it was an absolutely positive experience. I wish I had an idea or any useful understanding of the solutions available, or could even offer any little help. But I'm afraid there won't be a right answer to this question, opinions are too different. This must be hard for you and many other admins out there…

It is right and important to discuss the impact of commercialization, invasion of privacy, how their business model could work out. I also have full understanding for everyone who doesn't want to have anything to do with meta and their user base here. But the rigorous defederation won't have the effect everyone wants it to have. Things will always play out in the most unexpected ways.

However, I’m sure there will be a community afterwards, and there will be people enjoying this place.

@jerry It’s exhausting listening to the constant defederation arguments on Mastodon. I personally think defederation at the server level is such an extreme option it should be limited only to the very worst cases, of which Meta is not one. I would follow the admins who are not threatening each other, because the other group will stagger from one defederation crisis to another if ActivityPub becomes popular.

@jerry is there a comprehensive list of who's doing what? I follow a lot of @defcon users for example, and it would suck to be on the other side of the fence from them.

@jerry If people are going to be all weird about Threads that’s on them. I have no interest in Threads unless it turns out to be amazing.

I have no opinion on the two options, they both are kinda bad options that were forced on you, so I would just pick one and roll with it, and adjust down the road as needed.

Personally I like this place so I will be along for the ride no matter what.

@eljefedsecurit @jerry restricting impacts the whole instance. Not restricting gives individuals the choice to do it themselves. I can’t selectively federate a blocked domain. I say treat them like any other instance - see how they behave and then react.

@jerry is it only those two options? That is, can you not directly federate but also not block or defederate other instances that have federated with threads?

@theomegabit I am trying for more options

@jerry and a related Q, is there any concern about server load of Threads really takes off?

We could see something like 10x the current user count. Would that amount of activity being published overload things?

@fennix it’s a function of how much activity there is between instances. If they remain blocked, there won’t be an impact for us. Otherwise, it’s probably going to have about the same impact (at most) as mastodon.social

@Jessicascott09 @jerry for 3, I think that’s just a matter of curating your follows. Unless you’re regularly browsing the federated feed, you’ll only see what people (not algorithms) throw at you.

For 1… this one probably takes a better understanding of what is accessible data merely by federating with an instance. As I understand it, most of the really scary data slurping is a result of having apps installed, and a lot of the rest is your actual interactions (which are technically visible to the entire Internet).

So, if I’m not running the threads app, and I don’t have an account with them, how has my risk actually changed? Yes, if I interact with threads users, they’ll see those interactions. Same way Google sees every time I email someone with a gmail account, even if I’m running my own email server.

I don’t see the same sort of ostracizing of gmail accounts, even though (to me) their analytic capabilities are easily on par. (Yet they keep advertising my current employer and ISP to me. Soo… maybe I have too much faith in them).

@jerry I voted Option A because of how you explained the consequence of option B. I am very much a wait and see belief on this. However, I don’t want to see infosec.exchange blocked by many instances. I’d rather enjoy what we have already than seeing what happens with threads.

I’ll likely make a second account on whatever alternative instance we have that federates with Threads, just to see both options. But as far as Infosec.Exchange, I’m going with option A.

@RandomDamage @jerry that sounds like a subjective assessment of their character, but what *threat* does it pose if Meta brings up stuff that uses ActivityPub and allows interaction? I feel like it'll either take off and be a nice feature for both sides, or it won't and it'll go away.

@jerry I suspect there are going to be things I wish to follow on Threads that will never be on Mastodon like some of the gov accounts and public figures I used to follow on Twitter. I wish that wasn’t the case but it is. There’s simply more trust in corporate media for wide audiences and return on investment. I’d rather not have to have multiple accounts in the fediverse as to me it kinda defeats one of the main benefits of being in the fediverse in the first place. I’d rather it be up to individual people to block Threads instead of it being server blocked by infosec.exchange

@jerry I voted B as well, and echoing the "where does it stop" sentiment. There's no good option right now it seems. If we defederate with every instance "we just didn't like"... There wouldn't be much point to the fediverse in the first place. I know it's more complicated than that, with all the various concerns regarding content, moderation, etc. It's a real slippery slope.

It's a shame the major instances are forcing everyone's hands on this. 🤔😞

@jerry A little followup next-day:

- Meta would never make threads with the intention of getting people to migrate to the fediverse.
- Meta would never support the fediverse if they actually expected their Personal Identifyable Information farm to leave.

Make no mistake, a potential fediverse integration is not there out of the greatness of their hart or to in any way shape or form support the fediverse.

@jerry To be fair, a future where commercial and non-commercial fediverse options can co-exist is probably the only realistic option. Aiming for fediverse world domination is naive.

But i still want to believe.

@DarcMoughty @jerry they are also notorious for erratic and capricious moderation, which can cause damage and is the #1 reason instances get degenerated

It's a fractal shit sandwich

@RandomDamage @jerry But they can only moderate things on their own instance, or block things from other instances from appearing on their users' feeds. I don't see how that could harm the rest of the ecosystem.

@jerry for each option, does this mean users on one Infosec instance won't be able to follow users on the other instance? If so, that sounds bad..

I can understand some instances not wanting to federate with Meta, but the whole defederate whose who choose to federate smacks of the fundamentalist purity culture I left behind a long time ago..

@jerry I picked option A but agree with the "instances should be able to do whatever they want" view and especially that "2nd and 3rd degree instance blocking" is insane

@jerry Also I find it mindboggling that people don't realize *it's all public*

@ajsta it will depend on what other instances end up doing. Emotions are high right now and I am hopeful that it doesn’t end up being a choice between two bad options.

@DarcMoughty @jerry @kurtseifried A fair point. I would block Facebook not because part of the fediverse pressures us into it, but in and of itself. Not being defederated by some instances makes the choice easier to make.

@DarcMoughty @jerry then you need to look into why instances get blocked in the first place.

It's a mix of political disagreements and moderation failures, and I'm pretty sure that moderation failures are the more common (especially for "professional affinity" instances like this one).

@RandomDamage We might be missing each other on this. I don't understand why a Meta-owned presence with their own moderation and culture would be a risk in the federation. Maybe they do a bad job... OK. How is that different than anything else? Why should we treat this differently?

@jerry TLDR: I am reluctantly voting for (a), with a heavy side dish of "let @jerry tell us what's practical as the situation evolves, which it definitely will."

Let me say right off the bat: don't like Meta and want to block their instance for yourself preemptively? Fine, go for it. Can you persuade your instance's admin that's the correct course of action for the instance as a whole? Again, fine, go for it. But this six degrees of defederation where you preemptively block entire instances because they haven't preemptively blocked Meta?!? Congratulations, you have just created the mother of all slippery slopes. Please, please, please let's not do this.

OK, assuming various Masto instances will ignore my wise counsel, what should infosec.exchange do? I have no idea if the Defederistas will win or the not-Defederistas will win. ("Win" = "have a viable, lively SM platform with many options to tailor to your tastes".) To preserve optionality in this muddy stage of things, I very reluctantly vote for option (a) in @jerry's poll.

BUT! Running two instances while you wait to see which side burns out into irrelevance first seems like an incredible waste of resources, human and otherwise. If @jerry comes to us and says, "this is not practical, we don't have the resources and we don't have a viable plan to get the resources to do two instances. I don't have a crystal ball but here is my gut feel about what we should do" then I am very inclined to take him at his word on this.

All the feels to Masto admins picking their way through this mess.

@jerry I really hope this instance doesn’t join the defederation purity test game.

It makes no sense, as Meta has access to all public Mastodon data regardless of whether your instance has blocked Threads.

Just ignore the people trying to whip up a frenzy and evaluate the whole Threads situation once there’s actually something to evaluate.

@DarcMoughty we should start with a block because they already have that reputation, established over *many* years, and only lift it if they show that they can do better.

The whole blocking instances that don't block instances that don't block instances that don't block Meta is petty controlling BS

@Em0nM4stodon @0x58 thirded.

@jerry I like both infosec.exchange and the rest of the fediverse and would therefore rather not have to move and lose part of that.

Especially because I abandoned Meta and the content it brings quite a while ago and would rather keep it that way.

@jerry Options A and B reek of gatekeeping to me – turning this place into an exclusive club to avoid the n00bs. Meta could scrape all the data they want from this place if they wanted. We’re not really protecting anything by refusing to play. Taking our ball and going home is pointless. This is purely performative, and what we’re performing is tech elitism. That seems totally at odds with all of the constant Mastodon proselytizing around here.

At the very least, everyone should stop telling newcomers the instance they choose doesn’t really matter. That’s a blatant lie. Turns out which side you choose on THIS ONE ISSUE determines which half of the fediverse you’ll be allowed to engage with. Hope you don’t choose wrong, newbie!

@PeoriaBummer well said. I will try to thread the needle

@jerry Sorry to resurrect this, but I gave myself some time to think before posting.

I trust you to be thoughtful about it. I know it’s not easy to be in your shoes.

@itsonlybrad then you should change your vote to option b. those who decide to be retaliatory will typically be the losing end regardless as history has shown.

@nobletrout you might be right but we can unblock and rejoin them. If you’re wrong and we get blocked by the fediverse at large that’s a losing proposition as well. There are honestly no good choices here. At the end of the day I trust @jerry will do what’s best for our community with the information available at hand as the situation evolves.

@itsonlybrad @jerry those who choose to disconnect and isolate themselves have, historically, been on the short end of the stick. Doesn’t matter if you are talking about geopolitics or disk format choices. The more we connect with each other the better the outcomes. Isolationism is extremism.

@PeoriaBummer @jerry @tchambers I'm not sure it makes sense that Meta would go through the trouble of ActivityPub federation just to get access to what is a tiny, tiny audience compared with their scale.

It does look good if they're accused of illegal anti-competitive behavior in the US for trying to kill Twitter, though. It's good PR for worries about Meta having a monopoly over too much of the social media space. Could also be useful PR if they do it if/when activity drops there.

@smach @jerry @tchambers You make a lot of great points. Considering Meta’s motives, Mastodon isn’t even on their radar.

@smach @PeoriaBummer @jerry @tchambers
No, they are not out to poach our much smaller user base. But as the monster in our lake, they can potentially affect our environment. It's smart to stay aware of what they are doing (and have done in the past and might do in the future) because it can affect us.

@egeltje At least with today's software, this kind of transitive blocking is likely to be necessary to prevent Meta getting access to people's data without their consent. Suppose that turns out to be true. Would the transitive blocking still irk you?

@jerry @mykl

@thenexusofprivacy @jerry @mykl Yes it would. Because where does this stop? An instance (or a user for that matter) is totally free to block whomever they like. But now this is defacto enforcing that blocking to other (independent) instances. Now it's Meta, tomorrow it will be the Dutch government (they joined last week and they did/do some awful stuff with tax algorithms and heaps of data).
Before we would go this route, I'd like some more solid scenarios for that "likely" in "likely to be necessary".

@egeltje that's fair, I agree that the analysis is needed -- I was just asking the hypothetical question about what if the analysis showed the blocking was necessary.

And yeah totally agreed that Meta's not the only entity out there to consider.

@jerry @mykl

@Em0nM4stodon totally agree -- and @jerry I'm also very impressed by the way you're communicating on this, getting people's opinions, and weighing what to do.

@jerry
At the moment I prefer option A.

The fact I dislike Meta doesn't make me blindly say Fedipact is the right choice, because I am not sure if the fragmentation we are about to experience is going to result in more harm than good.

I am going to stay in the instance regardless the decision.

@jerry I do think it’s interesting, according to this chart https://fedipact.veganism.social instances with:
- 10,000+ active users - 9 will allow, 3 have suspended.
- 5000+ 8 allow, 4/5 suspend.
- 1000+ 29 allow, 16 suspend.

Looks like the majority have opted to allow at this point.

Can you tell the top 10 instances or so we collectively follow? That might be a good way to decide how to go?