Mastodon's official stance on Threads

brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.world – 512 points –
What to know about Threads
blog.joinmastodon.org
247

You are viewing a single comment

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.

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.

That was a good read, totally changed my position. Thank you.

Would you consider editing your original post to reflect that :)

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.

I don't see threads providing any value

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

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

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

I also might be underestimating people's ability to actaully use a platform. Idk

I've spent way too long thinking about this.

It's already happened in the past, it will happen in the future.

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?

Plus if all a lot of people who you follow are on threads then it might be a more attractive option to just switch platforms so you can see their content again after meta defederates

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.

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.

Plus this isn't like its XMPP or something where people actaully care who they're talking to. I really don't.

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.

It's only been a few hours and they already have more users than the entire Fediverse did during its peak by yesterday after all of this recent drama. We are already fucked, I salute every one of you as the fediverse sinks.

Still don't get how their do that while there is already a big coperate backing with mastodon gbmh.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So what do you suggest? Mass defederation from them?

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).

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.