3 ms·

> To corrupt and destroy the Fediverse Threads launched without Fediverse support, so this makes no sense.

• rvz 3y ago
  Threads (Instagram) already confirmed that they will federate and has the resources and money to do it, so the likelihood is almost certain. With 90M users, they are essentially the new Fediverse. All other Mastodon instances see that as a threat and banned it in advance. Otherwise those NDAs would never have been signed or sent in the first place to those admins of large instances. Might as well have been a blank document if they were joking. In reality, it has already split and corrupted the Fediverse. (Thanks to the signed NDAs.)
  • lapcat 3y ago
    The question here isn't whether Threads will corrupt and destroy the Fediverse, the question is why does Threads exist? To corrupt and destroy the Fediverse is a nonsense answer. Why would Meta care about corrupting and destroying the Fediverse, which is extremely tiny compared to Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook? You mentioned Fediverse support as somehow protecting Threads from antitrust regulators (a dubious notion itself), but there wouldn't be any need to protect Threads from antitrust regulators if threads didn't exist! What exactly is the raison d'être of Threads, if not to replace Twitter? I know you love to bash Mastodon, but it's a red herring to this discussion. The bare-bones launch of Threads seems to reveal Meta's priorities: the algorithmic feed, and the promotion of brands and influencers.
    • rvz 3y ago
      [flagged]
  • camdat 3y ago
    > All other Mastodon instances By "all" you mean the fraction of a fraction of moderators of specific instances that signed onto the petition. The vast majority of Mastodon instances will happily federate. My instance definitely will. Why not, it's free content