In reviewing the Fedipact page, I noticed the message about Threads having moved to threads.com nearly a year ago. In reviewing federation status with the Federation Checker tool, I noticed that most Lemmy instances don’t appear to have added threads.com to their defederation lists. Is Threads able to federate with other Fediverse instances using its new domain?
It doesn’t matter, Threads has crippled their ActivityPub implementation so badly that I’ve never once seen a post from a threads user. Meta gave up on the idea, effectively.
I don’t know that they crippled anything. I still regularly see posts from a few users. The problem is that they just half-assed it. It’s unidirectional. So you can see and reply to their posts but they can’t do anything back. They can’t follow you or reply to anything. It’s also opt-in, and almost no one cared enough to do that.
I think the reason they did it in the first place was to avoid regulatory scrutiny but no one gives a shit about that anymore.
Meta gave up on the idea, effectively
From their perspective: not enough users to be worth the bother.
Why federate when you can just scrape and avoid the controversy
Yes, as long as it’s not blocked, it can federate just like any other software.
seems to me that one way federation is the right answer/solution. Let fediverse users retreive threads content, but dont serve up fediverse content to help meta keep threads users locked in.
Isn’t blocking one way? So you can block threads but threads will still receive your content?
By block I meant defederate, as described in my post, rather than a user-level block. Just clarified the title; apologies for the confusion.
That depends on whether the software allows it; Mastodon uses the AUTHORIZED_FETCH variable for this. If it’s active, blocked instances can no longer fetch posts via AP.
