I look forward to reading everyone’s calm and measured reactions
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?
deleted by creator
Just defederate them and move on.
Jfc sounds like they’re just paving over the community with a giant ad of themselves
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.
What about clients that have discovery feeds for content you might not be subbed to? Would that be a problem?
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
I actually agree with this take.
but is mainstream social media
People on Mastodon are preemptively blocking federation. What can I say 🤷
Just a nice high five for them not falling for corporate embrace and extinguish bullshit when it is in the embrace phase!
Kinda lame. I wonder what site allows it
Me too! Just keep calm and scroll!
Came here to learn whether I’m supposed to like this
Do you like snarky Wendy’s ads?
…kinda?
Well you are not allowed to
Oh. Sorry, I’ll stop.
Well that was civil
And informative!
Over the last week I’ve truly learned the depths of this and my researched conclusion is … no bueno
did you join fediverse to escape big companies
Me, not necessarily. I think it will be a good thing when big companies run fediverse instances too. The point of the fediverse is to have choices whom (including which big company) to trust.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.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).
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.
Same old corporate strategy. Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Didn’t most of the fediverse preemptively de-federate them already?
Mastodon.social, the biggest instance ran by Mastodon devs didn’t and encourages wait and see approach.
I’m on that server and that’s how I feel too.
If it goes poorly, then it can be blocked, but to not try seems silly to me.
the biggest instance ran by Mastodon devs
Did it?
Is there a list of instance somewhere that we can pick from? I thought someone was putting together a list.
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.
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
Nah, users can vote and then if they don’t get the vote they want, they can go to another instance.
Users on Mastodon can simply block their domain if they want to.
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.
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
How many users are on your instance? I’ve never heard of it.
a little over 20 active users
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.
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.
They used it in a perfectly acceptable and understandable way. The definition you’re describing as sarcastic is an official meaning of the word. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patronize
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”
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”.
It might be, but I’ve only ever seen it used in the condecending way. And it seems to be used like this for quite some time
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.
yup. language is weird
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.
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.
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?)
What if they’re also using it sarcastically
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
Embrace extend extinguish
Don’t federate with corps, it will only end badly
Hold your ground men, stay on non-corpo socials (here)!
They can’t really do anything they couldn’t already do if we do that.
Please could you tell me what success looks like for ActivityPub if it doesn’t involve adoption?
It’ll look like what we already have. Swaths of users self hosting, with lots of redundancy to deal woth instances that have problems.
And that might mean it needs to stay small, but that’s OK. Not all success is measured in popularity.
Staying free, open, and undriven by this idea of a shareholder that will destroy anything good in the pursuit of profit.
corpo philosophy 101
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.
Yep, can’t wait to be able to personally defederate from them, I hope that option comes soon.
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.
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.
Read this for an idea as to why people are against letting Meta federate: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
It’s not a cut and dry yes or no for me.
I might be looking at this wrong, so please let me know why if I am, but I don’t understand the argument that Google killed XMPP. The protocol existed before Google and still existed after Google. I assume the number of people using the XMPP protocol before Google implemented it was small. Then for a little while, Google added all of their users into the network who could now message all the “pure” XMPP users who were already there. After that though, when Google left the protocol and took all its users that weren’t using XMPP before then anyway, how did that kill it? Would you not still have the same group of XMPP users who were there before Google? Anyone you could chat with before you could still chat with now.
XMPP was very popular. Google joined it, and with it, the power to give it’s users on Gmail access to all the other chat products that all had more chat users by sharing the same XMPP space. Users were very happy to use the superior Gmail product and also let go of their old chat tools because they could still talk to everyone just fine!
Google waited until they had most of the users and simply started making non compatible changes to their chat until they finally defederated themselves and suddenly their users could no longer chat with anyone who wasn’t also on Google.
People noticed, but most of the users were no longer willing to drop their now-familiar gchat client because they were now used to it. Users like me who wanted to use Pidgin still were suddenly unable to chat with 80% of their friends unless they gave in and opened up gchat too.
If Google never federated with the system, we might still likely have aim, msn, etc still around focusing on their chat users. But Google did their thing, stole the market and we’re where we’re at now. Ironically, most people I know now disable Google chat because Google has tried really hard to ruin something that was just fine. But no one is installing Pidgin again and have mostly moved to Discord and Slack (at least in my circles).
is facebook
why wouldn’t you want to defederate
bc there’s people on the other side :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
What are “people’s numbers”? What power would they have if we didn’t defederate?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
will damage be permanent
they have more influence
It’s like blocking e-mails from Google. People can’t take a win.
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…
How does defederating prevent that from happening anyway?
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.
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.
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.
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.
it’s also doing a lot better than Mastodon because they integrated it with Instagram
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.
Google the history of xmpp. This is exactly the same.
It’s not a good thing.
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.
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.
I simply don’t trust meta, they have incredibly bad precedent.
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.
I wish they wouldn’t. Stay a walled garden.
I was here when EEE started!
If true, I would expect this link to work, but it’s 404 at the time of this comment:
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.
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.
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.
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.
The owner of the server I’m on wrote a nice post describing his reasoning https://about.scicomm.xyz/doku.php?id=blog:2023:0625_meta_on_the_fediverse_to_block_or_not_to_block
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.
That post is outstanding and is a wonderful writeup that highlights the danger of associating with a company as morally bankrupt as Meta.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Democracy is about choice too.
I’d call Trump voters irrational.
By your logic, I couldn’t.
what wrong with facebook rejection
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.
facebook only has one instance
deleted by creator
does mastodon
decentralized
only one instance
pick one
deleted by creator
EEE was the first issue folks brought up when threads was announced. It’s always been apart of the conversation.
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.
Feels like this is a argument about perspective. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
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.
how is irrational
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Joining the fediverse — the decentralized world of social media that includes Mastodon, Pixelfed, and other services that all interoperate through ActivityPub — has been on the Threads team’s to-do list since the very beginning.
Instagram head Adam Mosseri told The Verge in July that he believed decentralizing the platform was key to making it relevant to a new generation of creators.
Skeptics have long held that Threads would never actually federate, even as Zuckerberg, Mosseri, and others at Meta kept promising they would.
For the largest and most centralized social service on the web, suddenly throwing open the gates to other platforms seemed like an unlikely pivot.
This test appears to only cover one small part of a truly federated social network — it doesn’t sound like you’ll be able to post from Mastodon to Threads, for instance, and you can’t move your account between services.
But the test at least reaffirms Meta’s commitment to ActivityPub and to being part of the broader open social web.
The original article contains 344 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Testes nuts.
Honestly I think this is good for the fediverse.
It instantly boosts mastodon and Pixelfed’s reach, which means people won’t dismiss posting there as it never gets seen.
I would never open a Threads account, but it unlocks seeing content from a lot of people I like who ditched Twitter but didn’t understand mastodon.
Yes, this can also be Embrace, Extend Extinguish, but I’m happy for the publicity.
If people don’t like it they can join an instance that defederatrs from Meta and that’s totally fine.
This sounds like it’s NOT going to increase mastodon and pixelfed’s reach
it doesn’t sound like you’ll be able to post from Mastodon to Threads
It looks like they’re only pushing right now, they’re not allowing Threads users to pull content in from the broader fediverse. Threads content gets exposure on Mastodon, but not the other way around.
Tbf, that’s just in regards to the current tests. It could change later on.
So it seems like they’re just doing it to push their posts onto instances almost as advertisment. Not a great practice, seems very spammy to me.
Because the integration isn’t finished yet.
Ah, that’s unfortunate.
It’s funny how “mastodon is too complicated” stops when the instance they pick is Threads.
🤔
People who say that are generally talking about the signup where you have to pick an instance. And then there’s the worry over which other servers yours federates with. If you isolate your attention to a single instance, then all those worries go away.
The same already happens on the fediverse in regards to mastodon itself. A lot of people discuss the fediverse almost wholly in terms of mastodon.
Also mastodon.social the flagship instance really kind of sucks. It has strict rate limiting and poor moderation (gotten lots of follows and follow requests from gross people on there. Also means it’ll usually be Limited by other servers or blocked by their users.
So doesn’t really help with the idea that all of Mastodon isn’t like that.
It also doesn’t work with a VPN.
I think it might depend on what VPN you use, I was able to use it from VPNs and Tor (Tor is kind of slow though). On Tor though it very much struggled to load images and the requests would take longer.
threads only has one instance
But now it’s one of hundreds you could pick to participate in ActivityPub/Mastodon.
you don’t need to pick instance to join threads
more content isn’t better content
And that’s why all social media is bad.
Look, open socials can either replace closed socials or be a niche little fun exclusive club for techheads exclusively focused on Star Trek and Linux and how open socials should replace closed socials. You can’t have both.
So if the conclusion here is that popular social media sucks… yeah, you’re right. Because all social media sucks. The content won’t be better if the same people join Mastodon than if they come from Threads.
I don’t agree at all here. If someone on threads has posts you like, you can follow them. If not, you won’t see any posts from threads on your feed.
Your feed will either be the same as before, or better than before.
am see by default
See what? Posts from threads? Depends on your instance and how you browse.
Lemmy has no microblogging features so you won’t be seeing any (unless they’re specifically posting to Lemmy)
Kbin I’m not too sure since there are microblogging features but idk how they work.
Mastodon; you will see posts from threads users if you follow them, or if someone you follow boosts a post from them.
If you browse by the explore/posts tab, you might see some threads posts. Also from the ‘All’/federated tab.
You’ll be able to block threads for your account, or choose an instance that’s defederated.am use kbin microblogging feature
No, not always, but there are people I know I like and respect and used to follow on Twitter that are on threads and I’m not.
will they go to mastodon
nooooooooon
Noon?
It’s settled then, meet me by noon at the church.
non
