In reviewing the Fedipact page, I noticed the message about Threads having moved to threads.com nearly a year ago. In reviewing the federation status of various Lemmy instances with the Federation Checker tool, I noticed that threads.com doesn’t appear to have been added to their defederation lists. Is Threads able to federate with other Fediverse instances using its new domain, including those that have defederated from threads.net?
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.
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.
Yes, as long as it’s not blocked, it can federate just like any other software.
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.
Defederation ensures that content isn’t received from or transferred to Threads.
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.
