All hail the arrival of Threads, perhaps the most unfortunately named and most pre-blocked social media platform ever, at least until Elon decides to launch a fediverse platform and name it โ€œSyphilisโ€ or something
Unknown parent

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Sarah Brown

@Scorpil ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ Because Facebook is, first and foremost, in the business of selling adverts and demographic information to advertisers. In order to do that they need something to entice people to the site. Traditionally they have done this by managing a large social media platform. This requires them to spend money on servers and engage in moderation, which is hard.

But without content, no ad revenue.

What theyโ€™re literally doing here is simply outsourcing the data centre and moderation requirement to tens of thousands of fediverse admins while they sell OUR USERS to advertisers.

And Iโ€™m not working for fucking Facebook for free.

in reply to Sarah Brown

So, here's my question about all of this. Does anyone else think that there is something fundamentally wrong about only two giant corporations owning the entire global social media market? And does anyone out there ever question why government regulators aren't doing their Goddamned job about putting the breaks on trusts and monopolies?
Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source

rootfake

@aaronIsHere @scorpil the problem isn't whether or not trans women are mums, plenty are, the problem is mumsnet isn't known as prosecco stormfront for nothing. Its such a hive of TERFs that trans people don't go there. That said you're right that facebook's whole deal is building widely sourced targeted ad data and we should block them for that on principle.
โ‡ง