You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

rob299 ,
@rob299@veganism.social avatar

@ThatOneKirbyMain2568 I made a post that actually covers some of the popular user conserns regarding Threads federating

here https://veganism.social/@rob299/111580401081770723

CoffeeAddict ,
@CoffeeAddict@kbin.social avatar

I see what you’re saying, but I really don’t see what Meta stands to gain in the long run from an open fediverse. It just doesn’t seem compatible with their business model to allow users who aren’t on their platform to interact with content created on their platform. They need data so they can sell it to advertisers, and I don’t see how that works when your users can just jump to another instance with no advertisments and access all the same content.

What do you think Meta stands to gain from Activity Pub, and why wouldn’t they just make their own closed protocol? (I am asking in good faith, because I do not really know.)

tiago ,

As I understand it, they’re joining precisely because they’d gain little. By flooding it with their content, any new user would think Fediverse=Threads.

I’ve seen the acronym EEE (Embrace, Expand, Extinguish) thrown a lot in these discussions because it’s a 3-word summary of their presumed strategy.

sour ,
@sour@kbin.social avatar

is mainstream influence good

rob299 ,
@rob299@veganism.social avatar

@sour depends on how you see it.

My question is, what has Threads done to influence Mastodon development so far in a bad way.

lets Say threads is just the mainstream platform of the fediverse. The protocol is all open source, and every one is in control of their servers. If it is federated whats the worse that could happen?

Plus you can always switch to lemmy, firefish, and etc. to try to avoid threads platform wide.

arquebus_x ,

Kbin defederating from Threads would be an own goal of hilarious proportions. The only entity that would be harmed is Kbin.

rob299 ,
@rob299@veganism.social avatar

I wouldn't say kbin would be harmed necessarily even if maybe just a tiny bit. A good amount of the users on Lemmy (can't say much about kbin hadn't tried it yet) hate threads. So as an alternative to Mastodon, that would actually more likely score them points not detract from a user perspective.

Most likely, for a user to be on kbin or Lemmy you either come from Reddit, or you come from Mastodon so the users would had likely made up their mind on separating themselfs from major platforms, that likely includes threads.

Alto ,
@Alto@kbin.social avatar

Counterpoint, what has Meta done to gain even the tiniest bit of the semblance of the doubt. If someone's punched you in the face every time you've knocked on their door, are you really going to knock on it a 15th time? You'd be a fool to expect that time to be any different.

Just like you'd be a fool to expect the overall impact of Meta having their fingers in the Fediverse to be anything other than harmful.

sour , (edited )
@sour@kbin.social avatar

parent company have bad track record

is all evidence you need

fediverse doesn’t get in mainstream because is decentralized

ThatOneKirbyMain2568 OP ,
@ThatOneKirbyMain2568@kbin.social avatar

I feel the post doesn't really address my concerns.

Really? You think Threads will take over and rule Mastodon? Threads is its own platform, users on the fediverse can still join Mastodon of their choice and leave. I expect we'l see plenty of anti Mastodon servers pop up. If Threads were to somehow get an influence in Mastodon, just switch to switch to switch to So many choices.

This seems to not really understand the risk Threads poses. Threads is its own platform, yes, but it will dominate the visible content of any instance that federates with it. It's very dangerous to depend on a massive, profit-driven corporation for activity on the fediverse, as the things we value on the fediverse (decentralization, transparency, even distribution of content between instances, etc.) go against the corporation's motives. Meta does not stand to benefit from any of the things we value, and most of the Threads userbase (i.e. casual Instagram users) probably won't notice or care about federation. Meta does benefit if everyone depends on them for content, as then they can pull people to Threads just by defederating. People will choose to go to Threads where the amount of activity is what they're used to over staying on their Mastodon instance after activity has plummeted and they can't see most of the people they follow.

This is a big one. Meta might capture the mainstrean fediverse. Lets just be real the average regular internet user wasn't going to join Mastodon in the first place. Not that they wouldn't want to it just isn't on their list next to or even . Actually I take what Meta is doing as a compliment to the fediverse. Remember Twitter at one time under banned the talk of Mastodon or something like that. Threads might not have our interests at heart but they are already mainstream so why should they not allow their users be federated with us?

Yes, there are definitely a lot of people that the fediverse is just never going to appeal to. But of those who are interested in the fediverse, more will be inclined to join Threads due to it having most of the content & just requiring an Instagram login. There is a pool of people out there who will try out the fediverse if they're introduced to it — that's how we all got here — and if people can interact with the big Mastodon, Kbin, etc. instances from Threads, many will choose to do that when they wouldn't have otherwise.

tasket ,
@tasket@mastodon.social avatar

@ThatOneKirbyMain2568 @rob299 Yes. But also Meta's screwed-up moderation systems will be brought to bear against fedi instances. The latter will essentially have to endure a shitty AI-generated smear campaign.

FinchHaven ,
@FinchHaven@sfba.social avatar

@ThatOneKirbyMain2568

"If were to somehow get an influence in , just switch to switch to switch to So many choices"

This exposes how little (if anything) the writer understands about any of those distributions

Mastodon is not interchangeable with Lemmy

Mastodon is not interchangeable with Pixelfed

Mastodon is not interchangeable with Firefish

Period

cc @rob299

rob299 ,
@rob299@veganism.social avatar

@FinchHaven @ThatOneKirbyMain2568 what I meant by that section you quoted from the post was, if Meta were to influence the development of Mastodon. If you switch to Firefish or others mentioned, you would probably have a more preferred dev team then what could happen to Mastodon with Meta.

Ferk , (edited )
@Ferk@kbin.social avatar

I don't think "the development" is what is claimed to be at stake here.

OP is not talking about the software, they're talking about the content. And the content model from Mastodon is not interchangeable with the one from Lemmy, Pixelfed, etc. they serve different purposes and have different models.

It's like saying that if most people use gmail for email you will switch from email to phone calls to avoid communicating with google's service. As if real time audio were the same thing as sending a message.

One thing you could argue is, instead of switching services, switching to an instance that does defederate if you dont want threads content. But that same argument can be said as well towards those wanting threads federation...

But dont think the point is what does the individual want (if that were the case, just use the option to block threads content for your user, without defederating), the point is what's best for the fediverse. I think people are afraid that something similar to what happened with "google talk" and their embrace of xmpp will repeat.

Personally, I think there's no reason to jump the gun this early... all of this post is based on a lot of weak assumptions. I dont believe that threads content would overwhelm the feeds, and if that were to happen then the software could be tweaked to prevent it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •