Even if you don't use Threads, when they eventually add ActivityPub support, Mastodon users' data will inevitably be harvested. Instance admins have been signing a pact[1] to defederate with Meta for this reason, in addition to the fact that they don't trust Meta to moderate their instance well enough for it to be safe to federate with.

[1] https://fedipact.online/

> when they eventually add ActivityPub support

What does that have to do with anything? Mastodon is explicitly setup to allow all user data to be harvested. What Threads supports or doesn't support in the end has no bearing on Mastodon having all user data public.

Just like digital entertainment is set up to allow all movies and music to be downloaded for free!

If you don't like it, just don't make movies or music.

This, but unironically. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of a zero-marginal-utility medium distributing your content without your consent, you probably shouldn't make and share digital copies of your work.

I think you would agree that harvesting that information is far easier if it's being literally POST'd to your servers (which ActivityPub does) than if you're going out to scrape them, no? It's the same principle with defederation; either they're going to scrape all the data, or the data is going to be literally sent to their platform.

The point is, the idea that "don't use threads" solves the problem being presented (your data being harvested), is wrong.

I find it hard to believe they are really going to join the Fedi. With 100 million users on Threads and maybe 2 million on the Fedi, how could Meta possibly benefit? Federating could bring them trouble but no benefit.

I could definitely see a benefit for them from a legislative perspective. By federating with other networks, they're able to signal to lawmakers that they're not _really_ a monopoly, they're willing to pay-ball with others.

Also, isn't the 100M user figure disputed, because it's counting existing Instagram users or some such?

It is real sign ups but it is very easy to sign up. Just because you signed up doesn't mean you're going to use it regularly.

The EU digital markets act will require "gatekeepers" like meta to provide some form of interoperability or open access. Supporting activitypub would be a way to satisfy that requirement.

But Mastodon can't possibly comply with GDPR the way it is organized. I mean Heavens you can use it without clicking on a cookie popup, they probably owe $70 billion dollars just for all the people who haven't seen a cookie popup already.

It doesn’t need a cookie popup because they aren’t using cookies for non-essential reasons, similar to how it complies with GDPR because they aren’t collecting any data beyond what is necessary for the service’s stated purpose.

I'm assuming this is the point. Facebook can get around things like requests for deletion under the GDPR by sending that data out to the fediverse, and then reading it back in from the fediverse after they've deleted it.

and when the EU complains, they get to throw their hands in the air and say "yeah, you made us do it"

Thanks. I was going to point out that this was an existing problem in the Fediverse (there are instances that are 'unsafe' because they are either explicitly _for_ hate speech or just don't do enough to moderate it) and that the standard approach is to not federate with those instances, nor with any instance that chooses to federate with them. It's not universally popular (some people don't like the idea of 'guilt by federation') but it's necessary if your goal is to prevent your users from coming into contact with nazis.

I mean, I guess nothing, they could absolutely still scrape data, but that's much more likely to be noticed (rather than sucking in data as part of product functionality), and is a higher barrier to entry.

The article shows that federation delivers data to Meta even if you personally don't use Threads, but I agree with your point.

If you want to control distribution of your data, don't join a federation designed to distribute data. Trying to blacklist nodes in a graph that you don't control is not a solution.

Information wants to be free, if you post something to a social graph assume everyone in the graph can see it forever.

Isn't the exact concern here that people avoid Meta properties and for that reason chose Mastodon, but now Meta is sucking that data in?

To me that still seems fairplay on a platform that's designed to be open and heralded that way. Not a opinion I hold strongly though.

I know replying with "did you actually read the article?" is explicitly forbidden on HN but is there an exception for cases where the person who didn't read the article uses a word like "asinine" in their dismissive reply?

Specifically addressed in the article.

"Even if I only make followers-only posts, which aren't public and can't be boosted, if somebody who's following me replies, any of their followers on Threads will see my account name and instance" and also "If somebody on another instance who follows me boosts one of my public or unlisted posts, people on Threads who are following them may be able to see everything I've said in the post"

Isnt this a core way that ActivityPub works though? Like this isn't a Meta issue. It is the technical functionality of the protocol these federated services are built on. If you transmit data using the AP protocol, your content isnt private.

Correct.

A lot of the protections in ActivityPub are listed in the spec as "should" not "must". For example edits and deletes.

I think it should be assumed that when you publish content over activitypub it is now public. Any exception that it is private is asinine since you are literally publishing it to other servers.

> Isnt this a core way that ActivityPub works though?

Yep but it counters the "If you don't want your data on Threads, don't use Threads" argument since you can be two hops away from Threads and still have your data appearing on Threads.

Did you even read the article? This is about data going to Threads from people who aren't on Threads.