you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 2 years ago* (22 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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?

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    what wrong with facebook rejection

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    facebook only has one instance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago (8 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    does mastodon

    decentralized

    only one instance

    pick one

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    mastodon.social already gets criticism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Yeah I know plenty of instances limit them making follows approval only. I also saw this line on a person's profile: "if you follow me from mastodon.social I won't approve your requests, migrate to a different instance".

    I think the main reason is because mastodon.social has a lot of spam (or has had it in the past) though I'm sure that the threads issue and the fact that they want to federate and encourage federation with threads probably isn't going to help.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    stated goal is providing decentralized and open platforms

    facebooks instance isn’t decentralized or open

    is contradiction

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments