Meta's Threads.net
Meta's Threads.net
Are we going to block Meta's Threads.net? I get it if people want to keep things open. However, Meta is a proven bad actor. They claim they didn't put in ActivityPub because it was too complicated to get it done at launch, and they can't get EU approval of their service because of the rampant and invasive data they gather. IMHO, they are going to attempt to muscle the fediverse out of the equation.
You're viewing a single thread.
i said this in a reply, but think it's important enough so I'll put it on its own too.
to me, this is very reminiscent of the paradox of tolerance. just because we want an open platform doesn't mean we need to, or should, support those who do not have that same thing in mind. and allowing it is at the risk of allowing them to operate unencumbered and most likely take advantage of open stance.
Openness, like tolerance, is a mutual contract. If one party breaches a contract or fully intends to, the other cannot be held at fault for not fulfilling their end of the bargain. Tolerance cannot extend to people who intend to violate others.
We know that given the opportunity, Meta would control the fediverse to its own ends. Failing that, Meta will try to destroy it and replace it with something they can control. Whether or not you think these are possible, this is sufficient grounds to block them. It boggles my mind that anyone would think otherwise.
@aberrate_junior_beatnik @niartenyaw how do you know that? Isn't it entirely possible that they just decided to build a Twitter knock off and realized that building off ActivityPub gave them a headstart and some good PR? Meta is a giant compared to the fediverse and it's trying to compete with other giants, not ants. Declaring we won't eat crumbs dropped from the giant's table isn't going to even be noticed by the giant. We get more out of federation than they do by a mile.
that's very fair, but i think they are going for control here.
their entire business model is to monetize via selling data and ads. so trivially they need users to give them data and see ads. to maximize this, they need to maximize the number of people using the app and the time each person spends using the app. both of these require control. easiest way is to lock in users via their network/communities being there while manipulating content to get people to spend more time.
open protocols are in direct opposition to this type of control. for instance, the tech giants see how they can't control email and hate it. they struggle to monetize it via their business model because ads and manipulation result in a terrible user experience. users will just leave and go to another provider (in this example, they obviously lose the domain unless they own and use a custom one). google killed the xmpp protocol with embrace, extend, extinguish for the same reason. as an open protocol gets going, it only gets harder for the tech giants to stop.
so, if they want to stay in control, they need to squash a federated platform as early as possible, the most proven strategy being embrace/extend/extinguish. so, given history, this is what the tech giants have planned for the fediverse.
Isn't it entirely possible that they just decided to build a Twitter knock off and realized that building off ActivityPub gave them a headstart and some good PR?
I mean sure but I don't see how that's in contradiction with what I said.
Declaring we won't eat crumbs dropped from the giant's table isn't going to even be noticed by the giant
So which is it? Do they get a headstart and good PR or are we completely insignificant? Seems like if we have the chance to deny them a headstart and good PR we should.
We get more out of federation than they do by a mile
I'm not getting anything out of it, and many others feel the same way. I'd be happier if they just made their own thing and left us alone.
@aberrate_junior_beatnik the headstart I was referring to was in developing the technology. As you pointed out it would be hypocritical to cite the fediverse user base as a draw to using ActivityPub while simultaneously downplaying the size of the user base as insignificant. Sorry I wasn't clear what I was referring to.
That makes no sense. It would be much faster to simply not federate.
What leverage will threads have over independent instances?
i have mentioned this is some other comments, but if threads ends up hosting/owning many of the popular communities within the fediverse (which they certainly will try to do), the independent instances can't do much if threads ever decides to leave the fediverse.
I agree there, but I think the most important response is to encourage users to make accounts through independent instances. Defederation with threads forces users who want threads content to make accounts directly with meta
this new meta product will undoubtedly go through the process of enshittification, just like all the others have, but we can sit back and continue to grow organically. those that care or get fed up will join, and that's great.
i don't think we need to be the next reddit, just a place that we all enjoy being. a place that is not driven by profit, unlike reddit, will surely be a fundamentally different place. striving to be reddit is doomed to fail.
i personally would be fine without meta's content if it means we are more likely to survive.
Replying here instead of your other reply but yeah it definitely is like the paradox of tolerance but I will also add that for most people an open platform is probably not the #1 priority. I think a lot of people just want to be able to access content and/or update their friends and separating off threads wont help that
However who knows what can happen maybe threads will flop, or maybe they will make the fediverse mainstream and we will have the interconnectedness that we all want
At the end of the day though, some servers will block threads and some wont but with enough options everyone can join a server that fits their needs and that really is what the fediverse is about