MimicJar

So Twitter is dying, we all know that.

Former Twitter users have a few options on where to go next. Ideally Mastodon/Fediverse. Blue Sky possibly. Likely Threads.

Users who go to Threads or Blue Sky will just make it Twitter 2, specifically Twitter from before Elon which I'll be honest wasn't a particularly great Twitter to begin with. (That isn't to say the Fediverse is immune from the same fate, it just has some better protections against it.)

So option 1, Fediverse says "Fuck Threads", Twitter 2 is born and it's shitty for them. Fediverse gets a few new users, but mostly the Fediverse wonders why "everyone" is on Threads.

Option 2, Fediverse keeps an open dialogue with Threads. Threads users are more aware of the Fediverse. More Threads users actually migrate to the Fediverse. The Fediverse gets a wider range of users. If (when?) the Fediverse has to completely cut off Threads, the Fediverse will at least have more users, some of which will remain.

Another open question, does the Fediverse want former Twitter/Threads users?

Yes. More users, more thoughts, more opinions, more diversity, a better Fediverse. That isn't to say I want shitheads. We can and should still ban shitheads.

The increases are seen in conditions or outcomes deemed preventable and are key measures of hospital safety and quality.

But not profit. If these hospitals were paid based on decreasing preventable conditions we'd all be much better off.

Right now coming into a hospital twice is more profitable than coming into a hospital once. If we (insurance) paid based on minimizing visits then both hospital safety and quality would increase.

That isn't to say it's perfect. Corporations will always find loop-holes in the name of profit, but it would be a good first step. (Assuming we're going to have for-profit hospitals at all, which is the real mistake.)

The era of Apple slowly opening up its platforms and devices without government intervention has ended.

When was this ever true? Apple has always been a walled garden.

So if we had 100 Mastodon instances, and each instance had 100 users, we have a healthy Fediverse of 10,000 users.

Now 1 of those 100 instances decides to do something. Maybe they make a moderation decision and become super pro Nazi. Maybe they add a new feature where you can video chat with other users.

Now Nazis are frowned upon. So if 1 instance of 100 users is full of Nazis, the other 99 defederate from the 1. The Fediverse now has 99 instances of 100 users and we have a healthy Fediverse of 9,900 users.

But maybe video chatting is a neat feature. Initially only 100 users can video chat with each other. Other instances add video chatting, but not in a compatible way. Some users can video chat with each other, some can't, & some don't like the feature at all. As a community the different instances and developers work together to figure out what should happen to varying degrees of success.

But let's change things. 1 instance has 7,000 users, a second instance has 2,000 users, and a few dozen instances have a few users, we still get a healthy Fediverse of 10,000 users.

But maybe the 7,000 user instance becomes pro Nazi. The smaller instance can defederate, but now you have the 7,000 user Pro Nazi Fediverse, and the 3,000 user Anti Nazi Fediverse. It isn't broken. The smaller Fediverse still exists, but it's smaller. Maybe the 2,000 user instance would rather rejoin the larger Fediverse. Maybe Nazis aren't that bad. Now we have a big Fediverse of 7,000 Nazis and 2,000 Nazi tolerators. The 1,000 user Fediverse still exists, but is MUCH smaller. Not great, for either Fediverse.

Or what about the video chat? What if the 7,000 user instance adds video chat? What if they don't want to share how it works? If you want video chat you have to move instances. Now our 7,000 user instance has 8,000 users. Now our 8,000 user instance adds ads. You can't leave if you want video chat.

The Fediverse can't be destroyed, but it can be shrunk. If it shrinks too much too fast, it might cease to be useful. If it grows too much too fast, it might cease to be useful.

Realistically it is in Threads best interest to pretend they care about the Fediverse.

In return the Fediverse should pretend to care about Threads.

In reality the Fediverse should "steal" Threads users. At some point Threads will do something really stupid (hopefully not immediately) and the Fediverse can go back to ignoring Threads, but having gained a good subset of users.

Dank% is done faster as child link.

I would argue that most people don't know about the Fediverse.

The Fediverse has maybe a few million users, depending how you count it.

Threads has 100s of million users. Even if only ½% of those move to the Fediverse, that's still a huge win.

I don't need rapid growth, but I do want growth. Any* users we can siphon off of Threads is a win.

*Any assuming good faith users. I'm against active shitheads. The Fediverse should not reshape itself to fit Threads, Threads should reshape to fit into the Fediverse.

To clarify users, you and I, not the company.