808
Mastodon's official stance on Threads (blog.joinmastodon.org)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
273 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 56 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (35 children)

Can someone explain to me why people are so violently opposed to this?

If Threads blows up, and ActivityPub is integrated, you'll have access to all of it through any federated instance. No need to let Meta sap all your data to view it or communicate with it's users. Meta can't kill ActivityPub or force us onto Threads, just abandon it and leave us back where we are today. If you don't like the Meta users, just make or join an instance that isn't federated.

Anyone can scrape the metaverse data and use it for whatever, Meta included. Them implementing ActivityPub doesn't change anything about that.

Look I don't like Meta as much as the next guy, but this all just seems like illogical gatekeeping

Edit: I understand now, see: XMPP and Google. Good article someone replied to me with, down below.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
    •
  • [–] 106 points 3 years ago* (11 children)

    Step 1: Threads starts federating with mastodon

    Step 2: mastodon users happily engage with threads, letting it become the biggest fediverse instance

    Step 3: threads stops federating with mastodon

    Step 4: mastodon users switch over to threads where all conversation is happening, leaving the fediverse deserted

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 39 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    More than 5 million people signed up within hours, let's assume they will have 30 million users by the end of the month. I'm sure there are Mastodon users will consider switching to Threads.

    https://www.marketing-interactive.com/meta-threads-garners-5-million-signups-in-first-few-hours

    And not to mention the Threads app is a privacy nightmare. I'm sure they can figure out any fediverse user, If fediverse server remains federated with meta server.

    One more thing, this mastodon server admin declined an invitation from meta

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Plus knowing meta, they'll problary select a handful of instances to federate with. Meaning this plan is stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    But Mastodon has less users than Threads already, if someone wanted to jump ship for more conversation wouldn’t they do it already? Heck, wouldn’t they have stayed on twitter?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Mastodon.social is the biggest instance

    There's plenty of conversation already existing. Even my single user instance is barely keeping up.

    Its not like this is how federation works, federation happens in 3 ways: a person follows a user, thus getting their posts, an instance follows a relay, which gets sent posts and spreads them back out like a vaccum, and 3rd boosting posts.

    I don't see threads changing all that much if people don't follow those accounts, and or meta doesn't follow relays and send their posts out through relays.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -12 points 3 years ago

    I can't figure out what meta wants to actaully do.

    I can't decipher fully.

    If your a big instance and don't want to waste bandwidth, just block them.

    If you want meta, block them from the federated timeline if you desire.

    No one will guide you in what to do with your fedi instance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 95 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    This article sums it up very well: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

    A monopolistic corporation joining a free (not gratis, free as in free software) network is always a hostile takeover.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    I hate this article since it compares to XMPP. A much more accurate comparison would be seething like E-mail, I believe.

    I get it... I'm likely going to block meta instances from the servers I have whenever I have time to figure out how to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    How is the comparison to XMPP lacking?

    Anyways, the same thing is starting to happen to E-Mail as well: http://www.igregious.com/2023/03/gmail-is-breaking-email.html?m=1

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 57 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me. Big corporations want mainly one thing: gobble up as much value exclusively to themselves. They will take whatever means necessary to get there. The strategies to privatize public resources (XMPP, ActivityPub, etc.) are known. They look great for the public on the outside, but over the years will erode the value for everybody BUT them. In order to not let it get as far, many (including me) are of the conviction to not even give them a finger, let alone the whole hand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    I think what people don't want is the audience and culture that Threads is likely to bring to the fediverse, not so much Meta itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    The audience is not the problem. Meta's mere presence on the network will be. We are now at a critical point in the struggle to survive as a network, and it's not looking good.

    If we continue like today, the network effect (Google it) would eventually lead to ActivityPub being the de facto too-big-to-fail standard in all of the web. We aren't there yet, though. Meta knows this too and doesn't want it to happen, because extracting value from a diverse network is way harder than from a centralized user base. The fact that they even want to federate in the first place (shouldn't be in their interest!) rings alarm bells.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    So what do you suggest? Mass defederation from them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Honestly, there isn't much else we can do. Spread the word that there are better alternatives to Threads and don't let them join us. If you prevent "If you can't beat them, join them." then that's a step in the right direction (survival of the network).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago

    I agree. There's absolutely no way Meta is a good faith actor in this situation (based on, well, everything they've ever done up to this point) and if we give them an inch they'll take the whole thing.

    The only thing to be done is an immediate, full−scale shunning by as many communities as possible. Make it abundantly clear that they're not welcome here, and they can go lie in the cesspool they already made of traditional social media.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago

    I guess the fear (and probable strategy for Meta) is to first establish themselves as just a reliable instance with a closed app (Threads). From there, it's a slow crawl to bring in the users, from outside but also from other instances. They have multiple tools for this: the infinite budget to develop Threads with exclusive features, just a better app, maybe influencer friendly ad models. The list is infinite.

    So where's the rub? Meta is just introducing activity pub to more users.

    The problem is two step: They'll eventually will lock in the platform from rest of the fediverse. It'll might be years from now but it'll happen (unless it's killed first if course). This hurts rest of the fediverse by making it smaller: They will hook in users that would've otherwise chosen another instance and now are in Meta's side fence which has turned into a wall.

    Note: Not an expert, I just like to speculate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago

    Because history shows big tech companies fuck over competition and that competition is us, regular people.

    We’ve gone from not interacting with them to now being their rival and a direct threat to their profits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    Do you remember what happened with gtalk and facebook messenger? They both were based on xmpp. After moving away from xmpp (what both did), I didnt have use for xmpp anymore. Honestly, Meta has given me no reason whatsoever in their whole record of existence to earn my trust.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent