It’s where all the good documentary and factual content has gone lately.

Nebula exists.

Blu-ray wasn’t designed by Sony, they just participated in the licensing pool. Sony designed UMD, those tiny disks used by PlayStation Portable.

Just have the server link a hidden device, boom, all chats decrypted.

Good luck setting up your own server and convincing everybody else to use that.

Signal is not federated. It relies on a central server, meaning for all intends and purposes Signal controls the entire chain.

Then you’re in a weird bubble. Nearly everyone uses it. I do. I hate it, I think its usability is bad, why can I only link four devices, etc.

WhatsApp uses the same encryption as Signal and chat screening won’t be exclusive to WhatsApp anyway, so whatever WhatsApp will need to implement to comply, Signal will have to follow.

Why would the users participate in moderating? That’s the job of the commercial platform holder.

Didn’t happen with MP3.

Someone re-parented a variation to prevent it being public domain until 2040.

So the variation cannot be used. That’s irrelevant for a file format. Some company could, for example, patent a more efficient encoding technique but the resulting file format is still public domain. So at worst an open source encoder would need to be slightly inefficient because it uses the traditional technique.

Someone will most likely patent hack it in order to reclaim it, then try to patent troll about it… Because corporate people are jerks.

How? If the tech is older than 25 years, it’s prior art no matter what. MP3 is fully free for the same reasons.

Outside the Apple world, a dock connector has been the norm way before USB C was invented.

It has a soft paywall.

I think the common practice is to link to the original in the URL bar and then use the body text to do paywall/loginwall removals.

Let’s go with your idea of what the topic is for a second

Considering that I’ve replied to another person with my explanation and got very positive feedback, I certainly know better than you. You’re not the person I’ve replied to. You interjected and then tried to educate to me what my comments are about.

have you considered how advertisement posts could appear in search results, hashtags, or the explore section?

Any brand account on a regular Mastodon instance would be the very same.

Or what if they decide to screw with the normal process and artificially inflate the number of boosts and favorites for advertisement posts?

Mastodon doesn’t have an algorithmic timeline, so that would lead to absolutely nothing.

Also, Lemmy cannot interact with Threads anyway, so Lemmy servers defederating from Threads is completely pointless. Irrelevant to what I’m saying.

Relevant to the comment I’ve initially replied to.

What copyright? Threads users gave it away when they signed up.

Nope.

Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that a (personal) account on Threads is either owned by its creator, or is associated with a trademark.

No, I made several good arguments, you just moved goalposts and declared they don’t matter.

The topic is

No, that’s not the topic. The topic is ads being placed in the fediverse in a way only defederation could block. Even if Meta silently making posts in the name of my favorite organic orange juice advertising Coca-Cola was legal (it’s not), it would be easily solved by simply not following any Threads accounts. Also, Lemmy cannot interact with Threads anyway, so Lemmy servers defederating from Threads is completely pointless.

about them impersonating their own users and using that to push ads through federation.

No, that’s not legal. That would violate copyright, consumer protection, competition laws, and whatnot, at least in the USA and the EU. Mastodon users (!!) must be explicitly aware that a post is an ad, not the brands ticking off an EULA on Threads. Therefore Mastodon users could decide to follow a brand account were products are promoted (just as they can right now if that brand has a regular Mastodon page) but Threads cannot legally impersonate one account on Threads to advertise another account. That’s not a grey area.

I didn’t set a timer but it took me at most a single-digit number of minutes to find documents and announcements about the FTC tightening the rules about deceptive advertising several times throughout the years.

Threads has no influence on the terms of service on Mastodon. So no, Threads can’t allow to misrepresent profiles on Mastodon.

Why don’t you just cancel it now and use ad blockers?

Joel explains this in the second sentence: “I’m OK with it, especially considering that it supports creators more than ad viewers”

Threads had more users than the entire non-Threads fediverse within a day or two. Mastodon is not the competition.

That would be A) identity fraud because it would be my favorite fair trade drink endorsing Coca-Cola without the ads being clearly separated as required by many jurisdictions and B) not targeted advertising in any way.

Even if Threads posts illegally embedded extra ads: Users could just opt not to follow Threads accounts. Threads cannot just magically place ads in the feed. That’s impossible.

Ads already are posts, as I wrote but the main feed algorithm is not in their hand, it’s the local feed of mastodon.

If users aren’t permitted to follow brand accounts, they’re just being driven into the hands of BlueSky. Your attitude isn’t helping at all.

Still a bit worried about hashtags being used for ads

Coca-Cola could have an official profile on mastodon.social and use hashtags there as well. Whether corporations use hashtags or not in their “regular” Mastodon posts has nothing to do with Threads.

Also Mastodon has user-level features to restrict unwanted content to show up in your feed ranging from hiding boosts up to blocking the entire instance:

And since Lemmy cannot interact with Threads content at all, defederating Lemmy instances from Threads makes even less sense. One of the big Lemmy instances blocks Threads but doesn’t block CSAM instances. Insane priorities their admins have.