1. Meta/Facebook has a horrific track record on human rights:
- https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/ethiopia-facebook-algorithms-contributed-human-rights-abuses-against-tigrayans
- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence
- https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17587080/mark-zuckerberg-holocaust-denial-kara-swisher-interview
2. Meta/Facebook is trying to join the Fediverse. We need to defederate them.
3. If you're a server admin, please defederate Meta's domain "threads.net" (here's how on Mastodon https://fedi.tips/how-to-defederate-fediblock-a-server-on-mastodon/)
4. If you don't run your own server, please ask your server admin to defederate "threads.net". Your admin is listed on your server website's About page.
Meta just announced that they are trying to integrate Threads with ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, etc.). We need to defederate them if we want to avoid them pushing their crap into fediverse.
If you’re a server admin, please defederate Meta’s domain “threads.net”
If you don’t run your own server, please ask your server admin to defederate “threads.net”.
The point of the second half is to try to dissuade others from simply relying on initialisms. It causes introspection. Maybe accusing others of being angry is uncalled for? It’s possible to want to prompt introspection in others without being angry.
The problem is you come across as a demanding jackass and will likely receive a “fuck you” in response rather than the modified behaviour you think you’re engendering.
Using initialisms prompt self learning for those that will, and wilful ignorance for those that will not. No one is responsible for anyone elses individual lack of capacity. Funny how your situation only encourages introspection in one half of the conversation.
What is the point of ever asking a question on the Internet if it should always just be met with “do your own research”? For the record, I did Google around and I couldn’t find that Wikipedia article, and when I did see it in another comment, I didn’t still understand the concept. This comes across as incredibly gatekeeper-y. Don’t understand why I’m not “allowed” into the conversation because I’m being barred from context because I don’t understand an initialism and my research failed.
You are allowed, just ask what it means. Don’t be a whiney little bitch that people aren’t hand feeding you every scrap of information, nobody is cognizant of your ignorance so don’t blame yours on them.
The point of the second half is to try to dissuade others from simply relying on initialisms. It causes introspection. Maybe accusing others of being angry is uncalled for? It’s possible to want to prompt introspection in others without being angry.
The problem is you come across as a demanding jackass and will likely receive a “fuck you” in response rather than the modified behaviour you think you’re engendering.
Using initialisms prompt self learning for those that will, and wilful ignorance for those that will not. No one is responsible for anyone elses individual lack of capacity. Funny how your situation only encourages introspection in one half of the conversation.
What is the point of ever asking a question on the Internet if it should always just be met with “do your own research”? For the record, I did Google around and I couldn’t find that Wikipedia article, and when I did see it in another comment, I didn’t still understand the concept. This comes across as incredibly gatekeeper-y. Don’t understand why I’m not “allowed” into the conversation because I’m being barred from context because I don’t understand an initialism and my research failed.
You are allowed, just ask what it means. Don’t be a whiney little bitch that people aren’t hand feeding you every scrap of information, nobody is cognizant of your ignorance so don’t blame yours on them.