But do they ignore existing implementations of a feature when they want to add that feature? And make it crappier when federated?

“Foam mouthed Threads opponents”

Threads is quite blatantly just going to throw it’s weight around. It’s not in good faith. They’re already not going to properly implement ActivityPub (which they apparently would do, according to pro-Threads federation people), and so certain content will appear different on Threads and AP. And of course threads is massive already as if you have an Instagram account you have a Threads account.

Smaller services and services which aren’t megacorps are fine. Honestly, BlueSky federation seems like a good thing to me. But we’ll have to see about that.

My point is there’s a line between “federate to get more exposure and connections” and “federate to get EEE’d”. Threads crosses that line. BlueSky I don’t know about. They’re very different scenarios.

Actually pretty well. I’ve seen mastodon users around a few times.

“Meta will play nice” the shills said.

“They won’t EEE you’re being paranoid”, they said.

“They’ll follow the standard”, they said.

Embrace, extend, extinguish

Yes. Instance and user defederation are best when used together.

Well said

Threads hasn’t federated yet, that’s why.

You could say the same thing about any EEE strategy against anything not proprietary. However, evidently it works.

Do you want threads to become dominant on the Fediverse by several orders of magnitude? Do you understand the implications of such centralisation on the Fediverse?

This is actually a really good idea. Anyone familiar with Discord will get it very quickly, as the concept is sort of similar and they don’t really need to understand how it works behind the scenes, they don’t need a perfect understanding of how it really works, just how it behaves to them.

And for people who do like accuracy, we’re also in luck, because they are in fact servers!

Let’s do it.

Why are people calling it “threadiverse”???

I’ve seen this quite a lot recently, and I don’t get it. It’s the fediverse, isn’t it? This name sounds like it comes from Facebook’s thing…

By adding threads.net to the defederation list.

And it will still connect to Lemmy, since we all use the ActivityPub protocol?

What is your point, exactly?

Ask your instance to defederate from them.

I came from Reddit, and personally I would rather see slow growth rather than having the fediverse dominated by Facebook.

I am an associate member of the FSF though so there’s a sort of purist bias that isn’t there with most Redditors 🙃

I understand where you’re coming from, though. People resist change, and so people coming from monolithic platforms are more likely to want another monolithic platform.

I’m using Liftoff right now. It’s got great features, and it’s very stable.

I addressed the point about Facebook dominating the fediverse in another comment in this thread. To keep it short, it’d be like they just popped up another platform like Reddit, Twitter, etc, and it wouldn’t really change the trajectory of the fediverse that much, since it’d be no different to another monolithic social media platform.

Why would someone create a Signal account when they can ask you to create a WhatsApp account instead?

People do it, because they’re convinced of it for one reason or another. But it’s a hell of a lot harder to convince someone to move when both are interoperable. Imagine if Signal and WhatsApp were federated together, do you think Signal would have nearly as much success as it does if WhatsApp users could just stay there to communicate with Signal users?

Maybe a separate fediverse instance defederated from the rest of them, and the rest of them defederated from Facebook, would be a better way to go about it, if we really must connect to them. Cut them off from the main fediverse, but still interact outside their platform.