Skip to main content


The Fedipact table showing which servers are blocking Threads is not accurate!

For example, it says that atomicpoet.org is blocking Threads when, in fact, this is not correct. So view this entire site with skepticism.

fedipact.veganism.social/

@fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to Chris Trottier

They also don't appear to have cast a very wide net when collecting those inaccuracies. 😆

Fediverse News reshared this.

in reply to Chris Trottier

Not the first time: hear-me.social/@admin/11214028…

Just the first example that came up in a search.


@kommaKucken @thomkennon
hear-me.social is showing as blocking Threads.net. This is not true. We are limiting them. There are no plans to block them.

We never had them blocked and we never signed any fedipact agreement.

Can you tell me who provided you with this incorrect information?

Thanks


Unknown parent

Chris Trottier
@tokyo_0 @nm Point is, I never blocked Threads. How many other servers can say the same?
in reply to Chris Trottier

given how inaccurate it is, I have to wonder what the intent was. Cause it certainly doesn't seem to be meant as an accurate portrayal of which sites are and aren't federated w/ threads.net ...
in reply to Chris Trottier

I think the point Tokyo Outsider is making is that your alt-text accuses "fedipact" of misinformation, but the screenshot you show is not of the fedipact website.

The actual Fedipact website is here.

Your OP is a good reason not to trust the site you linked to and to use the official fedipact site instead.

in reply to Chris Trottier

The table on fedipact.online/ does not list your instance. You're talking about the table on an unaffiliated 3rd-party site.

(Which I agree should not be used due to it being unreliable).