vetehinen

@vetehinen@lethallava.land

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

jerry , (edited ) to random
@jerry@infosec.exchange avatar

The number of active Mastodon accounts continues to drop, including here on Infosec.exchange, however it’s dropping slower than elsewhere. According to https://fedidb.org/software/mastodon we are the number 4 (soon to be number 3) most active instance. I’m not sure whether to be happy or sad.

vetehinen ,

@jerry @krypt3ia bsky is absolutely not hitting any critical mass. It has been losing users ever since the brief blip when they opened up.

BeAware , (edited ) to random
@BeAware@social.beaware.live avatar

Finally sitting down to watch/listen to the podcast with Mike Mccue, CEO of Flipboard, and Ryan Barrett, creator of BridgyFed.

This should be good!😁

So cool to see the leaders in this space share info and help each other make this the best social media project it could be! 1/?

Link: https://inv.tux.pizza/watch?v=TtVtQOHl9DY

vetehinen ,

@BeAware well to be fair many people might be shouting for threads to be opt-in if Meta had not chosen to make it so anyway and also the anti-threads energy was channeled more into demands of a complete fediblock

vetehinen ,

@BeAware Threads only pushes to the fediverse and doesn't take anything in right now so there is nothing to opt-in to for us currently. It's true they might not start asking even when this becomes bidirectional but not sure. I hope they won't make it opt-in tbh.

But when it comes to how it works now I don't see the difference between Threads and this Bluesky bridge. Just like you can run into posts from Threads without having followed any Threads account you can still run into posts from Bluesky here despite not having opted in to the Bridgy fed bridge.

BeAware , to random
@BeAware@social.beaware.live avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    vetehinen ,

    @BeAware @pcottle could swear I've seen someone say is planning to not allow such things but then again that could have been just speculation although I would not be surprised.

    That said, I think I might actually prefer it that way because it is another reason for people to come to this side of the fediverse instead of using Threads.

    BeAware , to random
    @BeAware@social.beaware.live avatar

    For all those on Threads that talk negatively of the Fediverse integration, those ones that are oblivious and then react very positively, make everything worth it.

    vetehinen ,

    @BeAware what kind of negativity are you seeing and is there much of it? I've seen a weird comment by someone acting like threads is some exclusive club, disinterest because of the limited interaction (for now) and (legitimate) concerns about the inability to limit who can reply but being only on this side of the fediverse my exposure has obviously been limited since I only see posts from those who have actually enabled it.

    atomicpoet , to Fediverse News
    @atomicpoet@atomicpoet.org avatar

    Barack Obama (@barackobama) is on the Fediverse!

    How cool is that?!

    @fediversenews

    vetehinen ,

    @atomicpoet @barney @fediversenews Worth noting mas.to admin recently announced their plan is to move from defederatin to just limiting threads.net: https://mas.to/@trumpet/112212159528724033

    box464 , to random
    @box464@mastodon.social avatar

    Opinion: I think Threads is going to end up offering “Threads only” public posts if you are connected to the fediverse. In other words, yes, you can enable fedi share on your account, but then decide on a per post basis if you want it federated.

    Hometown and some Forkeys already have a local only posts feature.

    The question is…will posts federate by default?

    vetehinen ,

    @box464 that is definitely possible since I already saw a Threads user suggest this. Threads lets you limit who can reply to a post so some users find it problematic there that this isn't possible with the Fediverse integration. Limiting to local on an individual post level would allow them to keep Fedi sharing on while also using the feature Threads has. That said, since it is impossible to really limit who can comment a post if it is public I'd rather see something that would offer implementation of this on the fediverse even if it isn't foolproof.

    BeAware , to random
    @BeAware@social.beaware.live avatar

    Well, it's only been a few days since Threads announced the ability to turn on Fediverse integration, but I can't help but feel disappointed with the lack of users actually turning it on as of yet...

    My instance only knows about 250-300 accounts that have turned on Federation. I know this isn't nearly the full list, but it's obviously going to be limited because of "opt-in" which goes against ActivityPub to the core...😬 🤦‍♂️

    vetehinen ,

    @BeAware I think it's too early to be disappointed but I'd definitely like to see more. People with accounts need to go do some advocacy to get more people to enable it I guess. I also saw something about the option not being there for some big accounts despite the correct region, but don't know any specifics so might not be anything there.

    bdrell , to random

    People sharing with the Fediverse, reply here and tag Fediverse Threads please!

    vetehinen ,

    @BeAware @chrismessina @mjgardner @chris they show up as tags for me on sharkey but not on mastodon

    vetehinen ,

    It's can be a useful server with a built-in UPS if there's any services you'd like to isolate from the rest that you're running. One example is backups as you want a backup system to be fairly well isolated but anything sensitive would qualify.

    You could also make use of it for purposes where the hardware can speed things up, I think that GPU could help with encoding etc.

    @Presi300 @selfhosted

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •