|
Top-level
fromjason.xyz 🖤
@aral @Gargron of all the pro-meta blog posts in the past six months, I have never read anything to the tune of "Threads is bound by Mastodon's terms of service like any other instance." Hundreds of thousands of published words and none formed a sentence close to that. Not even in the form of a question. Odd. 7 comments
fromjason.xyz 🖤
@jameshisnthere @aral @Gargron federation comes with terms for most of the popular servers.
Jamesh Isn't Here
@fromjason @aral @Gargron Sure. every individual server has its own defederation standard. Most of the big servers seem to use a light hand compared to some when defederating entire servers and maybe do most of their moderation at the user level. At least, that's my impression. There is a minimum standard to be included on the joinmastodon.org website, but threads won't be there regardless.
fromjason.xyz 🖤
@jameshisnthere @aral honestly dude, I'm not into having a pedantic convo about mastodon terms. It derails and degrades the point that Meta has carte blanche with its interpolation by those with the most influential voices in the Fediverse. If you're willing to advocate for a company like meta to gain access, why not be clear with what is and isn't acceptable from the jump? Seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Jamesh Isn't Here
@fromjason I'm sorry for coming across that way or if I misunderstood. I read your comment as asking for a blanket statement from some authority speaking for the entire fediverse, which is obviously impossible. In retrospect I realize you may have been asking for certain people to make it clearer that they won't give threads special treatment or maybe I just don't get what you're saying. But, yeah, I'll shut up now. 
Oliphant
@fromjason @aral @Gargron They will literally use that as a reason to block content from other servers. Yes, you're bound by the rules of the server you're on, and that includes what content is allowable, shareable, etc, even if that content originates from Threads.
Promethea :flag_trans_anim:
That would be because threads doesn't use Mastodon, and Mastodon doesn't have terms of service anyway. It's more a matter of ethical consistency. Someone who runs an instance that federates with threads can't claim to give a darn about any of its users in vulnerable groups. |
Gregory's Server
@fromjason @aral @Gargron Because there's no such centralized terms of service that binds all instances. Or did you mean Mastodon.social specifically?