• GhostalmediaOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11811 months ago

      My primary concern is that they appear to be allowing Thread content to be pulled into other Fedi clients, but not the inverse. So Threads content on Mastodon, but no Mastodon content on Threads. That’s not super great for Mastodon exposure.

      Also, given the vast differences in daily active users, wouldn’t Mastodon become flooded, and eventually dependent, on Threads content?

      • @breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2711 months ago

        Also, given the vast differences in daily active users, wouldn’t Mastodon become flooded, and eventually dependent, on Threads content?

        Servers only pull subscribed user content, so it’s not like the option is nothing or The Firehose. Meta can’t push content into the Fediverse.

        I think it’s important to note that Meta doesn’t have more power than anyone else here. They’re just a large instance. They have the same forces keeping them honest as anyone else and their size doesn’t change the incentives for mods and admins. Mods don’t have an interest in working for Meta for free. If they’re spending too much of their time moderating that content, Threads will be limited or defederated.

        Given Meta’s size and history it’s understandable to be concerned. At the end of the day though, they’ll either play nice or get bounced. I think we’ll be fine either way.

        • GhostalmediaOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          511 months ago

          What about clients that have discovery feeds for content you might not be subbed to? Would that be a problem?

          • @breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            611 months ago

            That’s a good question. I don’t know. My guess is that you could be exposed to Threads content you don’t want in the same way you could be exposed to Mastodon content you don’t want. I can’t imagine they’re not set up to respect blocks, mutes, or server suspensions though, right? They have a way bigger problem than Threads if they don’t.

          • @NicoCharrua@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            411 months ago

            What do you mean discovery feeds? Like the federated/all tab?

            Because those feeds only show posts that the instance knows about, which is (mostly) posts from people that at least one person on your instance followed.

            If you check the all tab on a small instance, it’s a lot quieter than it is on something like mastodon.social.

      • @NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

        I personally remain neutral on this. The issue you point out is definitely a problem, but Threads is just now testing this, so I think it’s too early to tell. Same with embrace, extend, extinguish concerns. People should be vigilant of the risks, and prepared, but we’re still mostly in wait and see land. On the other hand, threads could be a boon for the fidiverse and help to make it the main way social media works in five years time. We just don’t know yet.

        There are just always a lot of “the sky is falling” takes about Threads that I think are overblown and reactionary

        Just to be extra controversial, I’m actually coming around on Meta as a company a bit. They absolutely were evil, and I don’t fully trust them, but I think they’ve been trying to clean up their image and move in a better direction. I think Meta is genuinely interested in Activitypub and while their intentions are not pure, and are certainly profit driven, I don’t think they have a master plan to destroy the fidiverse. I think they see it in their long term interest for more people to be on the fidiverse so they can more easily compete with TikTok, X, and whatever comes next without the problems of platform lockin and account migration. Also meta is probably the biggest player in open source llm development, so they’ve earned some open source brownie points from me, particularly since I think AI is going to be a big thing and open source development is crucial so we don’t end up ina world where two or three companies control the AGI that everyone else depends on. So my opinion of Meta is evolving past the Cambridge Analytica taste that’s been in my mouth for years.

        • Josh
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 months ago

          I actually agree with this take.

      • @misk@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        If they opened as read only then they created API in a most convoluted way possible. If that ridonculous claim is true then I wonder when we see first third party Threads apps.

    • Cyber Yuki
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3111 months ago

      People on Mastodon are preemptively blocking federation. What can I say 🤷

  • @dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Hi everyone, I am collecting preemptive pikachu faces for when meta inevitably attempts to screw the fediverse over. Please put them in replies to this comment so we don’t clutter up the rest of the comments.

    • 7heo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      11 months ago
      • 1999, XMPP is born. 👶
      • 2005, Google launches “Talk”, touted as a “great victory for XMPP”, with “large-scale XMPP services”.
      • 2012, Google encourages “Talk” users to switch to “Hangouts”.
      • 2013, Google drops open XMPP interoperability with other servers.
      • 2015, Google begins shutting down “Talk” clients.
      • 2017, previous phase is now complete, XMPP is virtually unheard of.
      • 2022, Google shuts down all XMPP integration. XMPP is, for all intents an purposes, dead. 🪦

      • 2016, Mastodon is born. 👶
      • 2023, Meta launches “Thread”, touted as a great victory for Mastodon. ← You are here.
      • 2030, Meta encourages “Thread” users to switch to “Fabric”.
      • 2031, Meta drops open ActivityPub interoperability with other servers.
      • 2033, Meta begins shutting down “Thread” clients.
      • 2035, previous phase is now complete, Mastoson is virtually unheard of.
      • 2040, Meta shuts down all Mastodon integration. Mastodon is, for all intents an purposes, dead. 🪦

      N.B.: The delays in the timeline were copied over verbatim. Historical conditions have to be taken into account, as the popular adoption of internet began in the late 2000s. So it is likely for the “extinguish” phase of Mastodon to happen much faster. I give it 5 years tops. And by 2030, we will all remember it as we now remember XMPP.

      • @realharo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        2017, previous phase is now complete, XMPP is virtually unheard of.

        So it returned back to a state where it would have been without Google anyway.

        All the Jabber clients and services combined were never even close to rivaling ICQ, AIM, MSN, Skype, or whatever else ruled the IM space back then.

        • 7heo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          So it returned back to a state where it would have been without Google anyway.

          The state before Google was “up and coming solution for federated chat”

          The state after Google was “impractical solution that does not federate¹ properly, and is hard to set up²”.

          Those are not the same.

          1: because of Google.
          2: because of Google.

          • @realharo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Users don’t care about federation. For them, there is no such category as “federated chat”. There is only “chat”.

            XMPP never had significant market share among the instant messengers of the time (except maybe as custom solutions for work chat, but not as a consumer service).

            • 7heo
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              Yeah, of course it would have not ever been a mainstream thing for end users. But Google definitely nipped them in the bud, both by providing a (bogus) drive behind the XMPP development (and so, preventing anyone else from doing so), and also by kickstarting them into relative widespread use instead of letting them grow organically.

              If they had, there is a possibility XMPP would have become a service provided by nerds for their friends and family as soon as 2010, like email, or more recently, nextcloud.

              And it would have been a valid option for corporate solutions. But no, instead, we got slack. Thanks, Google.

  • MentalEdge
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4811 months ago

    Didn’t most of the fediverse preemptively de-federate them already?

    • @misk@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3511 months ago

      Mastodon.social, the biggest instance ran by Mastodon devs didn’t and encourages wait and see approach.

    • Draconic NEO
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      A lot of instances did, the flagship instances run by the Devs of Mastodon didn’t. They think that it’s good and want to encourage it, though at the same time their instances have a spam problem so bad many instances have decided to limit them, making it harder to follow people if your account is on them.

      Also noticed that many people say they won’t follow people who are on Mastodon.social or approve follow requests. Which is a bit extreme but I also get it, there’s lots of spambots and not great people on those instances and moderation is slow since they’re so big which doesn’t really help.

    • SkaveRat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -111 months ago

      some do.

      I have a small community masto instance and don’t. If my users want to block the instance, it’s literally 2 clicks and a confirmation away.

      Doing to server wide is massively patronizing towards the users

        • kpw
          link
          fedilink
          411 months ago

          Users on Mastodon can simply block their domain if they want to.

          • @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 months ago

            But can’t Mastodon post on Lemmy and Lemmy can’t block instances on an individual basis? That’s the way I understand it currently stands. I don’t want threads showing up in my feed and would like to block them.

        • SkaveRat
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          yup. And that’s what we did. The majority of people either didn’t care either way or didn’t want to block it. With way more “don’t block” than “block”. So that’s that. At least for now

      • 👁️👄👁️
        link
        fedilink
        English
        011 months ago

        I see it as just virtue signaling. At the end, we can choose to not join those servers who defederate with them, but I can also think it’s a stupid decision at the same time lol.

      • MentalEdge
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -211 months ago

        You might want to look up what patronize means, in the common phrase “don’t patronize me” it’s used sarcastically.

        Essentially, replace the word with “helpful” in your sentence, and you’ll see why it doesn’t fit.

        • SkaveRat
          link
          fedilink
          English
          511 months ago

          yeah, I get what you mean. But it’s still mostly fitting in the way I feel about it. Basically: users can think for themselves. They don’t need me to take care of the bit scary world out there.

          Doing so for a whole instance feels super condecending. “I know better than you what you want. I’m going to block it”

          • MentalEdge
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -2
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I get what you meant, which is why I replied, I’m saying that that word means the opposite of what you intended.

            To patronize someone is not a bad thing, the word means “to be someone’s customer/patron” and through doing so, supporting and helping them. That’s where patreons name comes from, for example.

            In the phrase “don’t patronize me” it’s used sarcastically to say “I know you’re trying to help, but please don’t” but the word doesn’t actually refer to someone who is going over your head to do things for you. It’s actual meaning is 100% positive, and hence confuses what you’re saying. Which is that blocking threads should be done by users because it should be their decision.

            Instead, your final sentences literal meaning, paraphrased, is “a server-wide block would be really good and helpful for all my users”.

              • MentalEdge
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Can’t argue with real-world use, but man that is a semantic shift that is doing the original word dirty.

                Apparently patronage and other forms of the word are having their definitions affected, too.

                I read a lot of books so I’m definitely a lot more used to how words are used up to several decades ago.

            • loobkoob
              link
              fedilink
              711 months ago

              I don’t know if it’s perhaps a regional thing but, in the UK, “being patronising” is used pretty much exclusively in the pejorative sense, with a similar meaning to “condescending”. I don’t think I’ve ever heard (in actual conversation) “being patronising” used to mean someone is giving patronage, in fact - we would say someone is “giving patronage” or “is a patron” instead. We also pronounce “patronise” differently, for whatever reason: “patron” is “pay-trun”, “patronage” is “pay-trun-idge” but “patronise” is “pah-trun-ise”.

              It seems the pejorative use of the word dates back to at least 1755, too, so it’s not exactly a new development.

              • @samus12345@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                411 months ago

                in the UK, “being patronising” is used pretty much exclusively in the pejorative sense, with a similar meaning to “condescending”

                It’s the same in the US, and has been ever since I can remember. No idea where this person lives that the positive meaning would be the first thing they’d think of.

              • @Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                What about patronising as in ‘patronising this business’? A little archaic, but I do hear it from time to time, usually with the ‘pay’ pronounciation.

                Then again, if someone is accusing me of being patronising (which happens a lot for reasons I don’t quite understand, but I digress), it’s split odds whether I’m “pah-trun-ising” or “pay-trun-ising”.

                English is weird (perhaps this is its wyrd?)

              • MentalEdge
                link
                fedilink
                English
                111 months ago

                They might be, but that’s generally a bad idea online (without using /s), someone like me who can’t hear their tone of voice could come along :D

  • @misk@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1711 months ago

    Pretty cool. I keep saying that this is a win for open standards and Meta probably does this to appease EU regulators. It’s no surprise that this happens as Threads launches In Europe.

      • Draconic NEO
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        You mean as instance blocking? Because the Lemmy devs have stated that it’s not going to work the way everybody’s assuming it’s going to work.

        So far the way that it’s been laid out it’ll only block communities on that Lemmy Instance, users will not be filtered.

        That’s ignoring the fact that Lemmy’s blocking system is already flawed in it’s design and isn’t really an effective tool against malicious users.

        So we really shouldn’t treat blocking even of instances as personal defederation, because it isn’t and unless something really changes and Lemmy’s development it never will be. You can on Mastodon because Mastodon’s blocking system is much harsher as well as the fact that federation highly depends on following, but lemmy works much differently and also has a significantly weaker blocking system (I should also add it does not respect mastodon’s blocking system) so because of that being able to block instances should not and cannot be considered an alternative to defederation, especially when it comes to malicious instances.

      • DaDragon
        link
        fedilink
        -711 months ago

        Why would you want to defederate at all? It’s akin to hiding your head in the sand, except done on a community-wide scale. Just because you can’t see the nazi over there in the bushes doesn’t mean he isn’t squatting there, observing you.

        • Spaghetti_Hitchens
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Obviously we will have to see what sort of content comes in from Threads, but knowing Meta, they will be serving a lot of ads in it. So instances will effectively be distributing Meta ads for free. Well free for Meta; the instances will incur additional costs.

        • sour
          link
          fedilink
          611 months ago

          is facebook

          why wouldn’t you want to defederate

            • Draconic NEO
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              They certainly have the choice to migrate. If they don’t want to it’s their problem. Fediverse wasn’t meant to be a wide open connect with anyone anywhere unconditionally network, if you want that go to Nostr (it’s filled with Right wing trolls and crypto/nft bros for that very reason). It’s meant to allow for instances to communicate and share content while still being run independently of one another. That also includes the ability to block other servers.

              • Aatube
                link
                fedilink
                011 months ago

                Facebook and the like certainly aren’t filled with right wing trolls and the fediverse is a very niche thing. They have the choice, but they might not even know it.

        • @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          411 months ago

          He already is, this is all open? They will include people’s numbers in their “awesome wave of the future” and I don’t want that. The more people ignore them and isolate them, the more they won’t have power over everyone.

          • Aatube
            link
            fedilink
            -111 months ago

            What are “people’s numbers”? What power would they have if we didn’t defederate?

            • @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              811 months ago

              Dude, facebook is evil, we all know that. I have no idea how they plan to take over the fediverse, but they’re planning it. Do you remember when they first announced and then everyone suddenly started calling it the threadiverse? They have plans, hold on to your seat.

              • atocci
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I’ve been under the impression people started using the term threadiverse to describe the Lemmy/Kbin side of the fediverse because we exist in Reddit style threads and interaction with microblog style fediverse posts is obtuse at best. We’re practically in a separate bubble over here, and that was the cause of the new term.

                Edit: The first time I saw the term used was when FediDB made a page for tracking Lemmy+Kbin users

                Edit 2: Archive.org link to the Threadiverse page from June 15th, half a month before the Threads name leaked.

                • @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  111 months ago

                  I hadn’t heard it once until threads started up. I didn’t join until the great migration, so maybe earlier people used it, but I had only seen fediverse to describe it.

              • Aatube
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                What is the worse case scenario for me, a person living on kbin? What the heck could they do to ever possibly affect us when we can just pull the plug on them anytime?

                • @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  8
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  by user @OtakuAltair@lemm.ee

                  If there’s one company you should preemptively block, it’s Facebook. They have a track record of destroying anything and everything they touch and there is zero reason to think it won’t be the same this time. From this post:

                  They aren’t some new, bright-eyed group with no track record. They’re a borderline Machiavellian megacorporation with a long and continuing history of extremely hostile actions:

                  • Helping enhance genocides in countries
                  • Openly and willingly taking part in political manipulation (see Cambridge Analytica)
                  • Actively have campaigned against net neutrality and attempted to make “facebook” most of the internet for members of countries with weaker internet infra - directly contributing to their amplification of genocide (see the genocide link for info)
                  • Using their users as non-consenting subjects to psychological experiments.
                  • Absolutely ludicrous invasions of privacy - even if they aren’t able to do this directly to the Fediverse, it illustrates their attitude.
                  • Even now, they’re on-record of attempting to get instance admins to do backdoor discussions and sign NDAs.

                  source

          • @sudneo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            311 months ago

            To be honest, not a great argument, considering that the hidden magic that Google and a handful of big players do, specifically in relation to spam, is what made emails substantially an oligopoly. Today if you want to run an email server, you need to jump 20 hoops to hope your email will ever reach the mailbox of someone on Gmail. Emails were supposed to be a distributed protocol too…

              • @sudneo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                211 months ago

                No really relevant for my point, but I assume that preventing them to be effectively part of the fediverse, can reduce the blast radius of their changes, since they will be (more) isolated.

                If they are on the other hand fully part of the fediverse (I.e. nobody defederates them) many people may be incentivised to move to “that instance” because it will realistically have better availability and in the future might have more “features”, which is exactly the kind of extensions to the protocol that other won’t be able to keep up with.

                I personally used to care more in the past, I don’t now that much, but I can definitely see the potential danger.

                • @misk@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -111 months ago

                  The whole argument is that Meta will do whatever they want with their implementation of Activity Pub and lacks any further details. Blast radius of what? How does that affect existing Mastodon instances? Do they lose anything compared to what they have now?

                  Threads doesn’t need Mastodon users because it has orders of magnitude more already. Mastodon has unique competitive advantage, for example no ads, that could compel Threads users to switch with little friction. It might turn out that Threads will offer things Mastodon won’t on principle (follower and notification management for huge accounts) which might actually make whole ecosystem more healthy and diverse.

                  Really, it’s best to see what’s going to happen. I’m optimistic because I think open alternatives are generally better and will win long term.

    • sverit
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      Pretty cool at first glance. Not so cool when they have pulled in enough users and then remove the federation.

      • @misk@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        They have orders of magnitude more users than all Mastodon instances combined already.

    • atocci
      link
      fedilink
      311 months ago

      I’m looking forward to federation. My stance on it is that I don’t want to use Threads, but I want to follow and interact with the people who do. Best of both worlds like this.

  • @Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1511 months ago

    I wouldn’t be too worried about Threads joining the fediverse.

    They had the perfect opportunity to dethrone X with a superior app but have given users the most barebones piece of shit that doesn’t even have support for hashtags or trending topics.

    Mastodon has this functionality.

    Last time I booted up Threads, my feed was flooded with e-girls posting twerking videos. I don’t follow any such accounts on Threads nor Instagram and I don’t like it when my social media feels like a softcore porn platform.

  • @mr_tyler_durden@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1011 months ago

    I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think this is actually a great thing for Mastodon. The truth is the majority of people are just never going to sign up for a Mastodon server as they stand today. The majority of people want algorithmic feeds run by a central entity. I know the people here don’t want that, but that’s what the majority of people do want. Will I use Threads? No but if this breathes more life into Mastodon and exposes more people to the concept then that is a good thing. Being able to use a client of your choice to interact with people on something like Threads is also a very good thing. The alternative is a completely closed social network like Twitter.

    I know, I know “embrace, extend, extinguish”, but literally this is the best that we can hope for unfortunately. The alternative is everyone goes and uses a closed system.

    • @shapis@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1011 months ago

      Google the history of xmpp. This is exactly the same.

      It’s not a good thing.

      • @mr_tyler_durden@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 months ago

        So we can let Mastodon die on the vine or chance it dying? Ok, I know my choice.

        It’s not like the majority of people are already on open protocols. I’m sure Threads dwarfs Masrodon usage just as Twitter and possibly even BlueSky.

        IF Mastodon was dominate I might have a different view but it’s not. If Threads federates then there is an opportunity to push people to other clients which make switching to a Mastodon/ActivityPub server much easier. That’s literally only upside. It’s not like the people on Mastodon now are going to leave it for Threads.

        • @Sanyanov@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 months ago

          They might end up being forced to, should Threads decide to revert.

          Mastodon users will inevitably hook up on Threads communities instead of fostering their own, and at that point being left to their own devices would be a catastrophe.

          And yes, this is exactly what happened to xmpp.

    • Mwalimu
      link
      English
      511 months ago

      What is the obsession with numbers? Centralization mentality is the problem. The idea that unless 5 Billion people are on a network will it be “successful” denies the joys of effective and sustainable networks. I really honestly wouldn’t want to see a fediverse server with more than 100K daily active users. I would rather have 10 instances of 10K active users.

      Meta and those billionaire centrists can go fuck themselves.

      • @InvaderDJ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 months ago

        I wouldn’t call it an obsession, but there does need to be a critical mass of users before a social networks become useful.

    • @arc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      I’m not sure. Might be a great thing, but Facebook might equally be the equivalent of a whale landing in a small pond, killing everything else in the process.

  • @farcaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 months ago

    Ok, so what is actually the main argument people have to preventatively defederate with Threads? I perhaps haven’t thought about it much, but I don’t personally see the problem if my instances would federate with them. I’m mentally comparing this to email. If I ran my own email service, or used someone else’s, why would I want to block Gmail, or icloud, or Hotmail/Outlook?

    Of course if they don’t have effective admin/moderation policies and actions then, yeah they should be blocked or limited. The same holds true with email federation.

    • AmberPrince
      link
      fedilink
      2311 months ago

      There is concern that Threads will use embrace, extend, extinguish to depreciate the ActiviyPub protocol. Essentially, they adopt the open standard, expand on it with proprietary additions, then when everyone is using the modified standard they drop support for the open standard and now everyone has to play ball by their rules.

      • @sir_reginald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        611 months ago

        I’m also worried that due to content moderation policies, Threads might choose to federate only with a few handpicked mastodon instances. Thus provoking a huge increase of users in these instances because they want to interact with people on threads and causing a centralisation issue, because people will start joining this instances far more than the others.

        It would also render useless self hosting a single user instance for yourself.

      • @farcaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        511 months ago

        Ah, yes that is a fair enough concern. Thanks. There are lessons in the fate of XMPP (and HTML with IE I guess?). However ActivityPub seems to have so much more momentum than XMPP ever had. This makes me more optimistic about Fedi.

        Also, unlike with messaging which is much more dependent on a small number of people you interact with, I think microblogging is much more personal. If Threads would join, grow big, and then defederate 5 years later I may miss out on following some people but that still wouldn’t make me leave Mastodon. I left Twitter after all.

        Still, it’s a reasonable and interesting concern.

      • @farcaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1211 months ago

        Thanks, that’s actually precisely what I was interested in reading. That admin team totally rocks for motivating their decision with such a comprehensive argument.

      • AmberPrince
        link
        fedilink
        811 months ago

        That post is outstanding and is a wonderful writeup that highlights the danger of associating with a company as morally bankrupt as Meta.

    • @pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 months ago

      I think the issue is that on most people’s feeds, the vast, vast majority of the content that they see would be from the @threads “instance.” Think of how salty people get about the size of mastodon.social or lemmy.world are compared to other instances, and multiply that along with the threat of a poison pill in the form of corporate embrasure.

      Culturally, the fedi is pretty anti-corporate, so a lot of members are suspicious of centralization / partnership with corporate entities. Though this lens, I think the objections make total sense.

    • MudMan
      link
      fedilink
      -1
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s honestly kind of irrational. The “embrace, extend, extinguish” stuff is on shaky grounds as a framework as it is, but it wasn’t even part of the conversation until people started trying to retroactively justify the knee-jerk rejection to Meta.

      So it’s mostly “we should grow the “fediverse” into the new universal social tool. No, not like that”.

      But hey, here we are. I’m on the record saying that I’ll mvoe instances if they join to keep them available.

      • iAmTheTot
        link
        fedilink
        911 months ago

        Isn’t the entire point of these platforms and the nature of federation is that they get to decide who they federate with and when, and even why?

        • MudMan
          link
          fedilink
          611 months ago

          Sure. And that the users get to pick their instance based on those decisions.

          Which is what I’m saying I’ll do.

          Problem with that train of thought is you always land in weird anarchocapitalist loopholes. Ultimately there is a level of communal decisionmaking that ends up happening and needs some degree of organization, even if the alternatives are also supported on the fringes.

          • iAmTheTot
            link
            fedilink
            111 months ago

            I’m not telling you not to pick your instance, but I was countering your claim that what they are doing is irrational. Because if it’s irrational, then the very point of these services is irrational.

            • MudMan
              link
              fedilink
              111 months ago

              I mean, social media sucks. It was a mistake. All of it. This included. So yeah?

              But no, a specific choice to defederate can make more or less sense. Not every option is equal. Defederating because some place is too popular and you kinda don’t like that it has a bunch of normies in it and is made by a big social media corpo? Kind of irrational. Defederating because disruptive trolls are harassing your users? Yeah, alright.

              FWIW, I’m not even saying that an influx of Meta users wouldn’t be disruptive. I have a strong suspicion that it would show big gaps on moderation and usability around here if you suddenly added a couple of zeros to the userbase. I still don’t think making it a rule that federated services have to be small is the right solution to that.

            • capital
              link
              fedilink
              English
              011 months ago

              Democracy is about choice too.

              I’d call Trump voters irrational.

              By your logic, I couldn’t.

      • sour
        link
        fedilink
        411 months ago

        what wrong with facebook rejection

        • MudMan
          link
          fedilink
          011 months ago

          With thinking Facebook sucks? Nothing.

          With thinking Facebook sucks and Facebook’s audience should stay in Facebook while the “fediverse” stays small and exclusive? That it goes against the stated goals of providing decentralized, open social platforms as a replacement for current closed platforms.

      • @JimboDHimbo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 months ago

        EEE was the first issue folks brought up when threads was announced. It’s always been apart of the conversation.

        • MudMan
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          The conversation doesn’t start there, though. Before Threads was announced everybody was buzzing about how everyone should come over here and they really hoped new services would join ActivityPub and it should become just like email.

          Then Threads and BlueSky started suggesting doing just that and it was all “actually, Google kinda EEE’d the crap out of email and RSS and we don’t want those guys here at all”.

          So no, EEE wasn’t always part of the converrsation. It was only part of the conversation when the hipstery claim that the cool obscure thing should be for everybody got replaced by the hipstery claim that the cool obscure thing was selling out and should be gatekept to keep it real.

            • MudMan
              link
              fedilink
              111 months ago

              Fair enough. As long as the different perspectives are represented and the groupthink doesn’t take over I don’t need everybody to agree with me.