9 ms·
Threads isn't ever going to connect to Mastodon, so stop pretending that it is
- benatkin 3y agoMore openwashing. Should I be surprised?
- JohnFen 3y agoI am continually surprised that so many people take what the likes of Facebook/Zuckerberg/Musk says as if they are trustworthy.
- aeurielesn 3y agoI have to agree. However, I have to add Pichai to this list as well.
- bearjaws 3y agoI figured connecting to Mastodon would serve as a PoC for tracking and marketing to people there. A kind of hedge that even if the fediverse took off, they could still make money from it.
- mcv 3y agoThat frankly sounds like a rather obvious use case for a big corporation. The Fediverse is entirely open, so if a company just creates their own server and follows people from all other servers, they can easily get access to all that open communication. I've recently been thinking about whether it's possible to add some form of limited distribution using encryption. Perhaps hitch-hiking on WebAuthn public keys? I have no idea if that would work, though.
- elsjaako 3y agoIn normal operation, Mastodon doesn't send all it's public posts to everyone. It only sends posts that someone on the receiving end has subscribed to. This can be confusing for beginning users. There is a link in the interface for "global posts". It doesn't actually show all posts, only the public ones that someone on your instance has subscribed to. For someone on a small-ish instance with like minded people this is a good thing, as it means there's a higher chance of a post being interesting to me.
- mcv 3y agoNot entirely. It is possible to see posts from people you're not following. I'm not sure how Mastodon does it exactly (I'm not on Mastodon, but the Fediverse is more than just Mastodon), but I think it also has a tab where you can see other content. In the end, if any user on a server follows the poster, the post will end up on that server, and it's up to the server to decide who gets to see it, which could be everybody.
- elsjaako 3y agoI mentioned that, didn't I? Or am I misunderstanding you? > There is a link in the interface for "global posts". It doesn't actually show all posts, only the public ones that someone on your instance has subscribed to.
- xethos 3y ago> some form of limited distribution using encryption I can't claim to know what your exact vision is, but that seems to line up with AUTHORIZED_FETCH [0], an existing (off by default) setting on Mastodon servers. [0] https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/config/#authorized_fetch https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/config/#authorized_fetch
- tomphoolery 3y agoWe will have to see whether Threads can maintain daily active users the way Twitter and Mastodon can. At the moment, I'm not seeing any activity on Threads that is "native" to Threads, meaning that it isn't just Instagram posts that are cross-posted to this new platform Meta is trying to create. In comparison to BlueSky, I'm not really seeing much out of Threads. It's similar to how Google inflated their G+ numbers by making everyone with a Google Account automatically a G+ user. Hopefully, Meta is not making the same mistakes...
- bawolff 3y agoIts only been 5 days. You might be right in the long term but 5 days is way way too early to tell
- tw04 3y agoThe primary difference being they aren't forcing instagram users to register with Threads - google was very clearly inflating their numbers in a way that threads/meta/facebook currently isn't.
- mcv 3y agoIt kinda is, though. I'm sure these numbers are all people who really have used Threads, but I'm also willing to bet that 99% of them are Instagram users. And most of the people you can follow on Threads are apparently Instagram users who never even activated Threads. Threads is really just an extension of Instagram, and not its own thing.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoI'm not saying that this definitely will happen, but this is a good way for meta to solve the bootstrapping problem for Threads. The process would go something like this: 1. Interoperate with Mastodon and onboard users, quietly hoovering up all the data. 2. Wait 12 months to get a userbase. 3. Deprecate the connection to Mastodon, forcing people back into the garden.
- jsnell 3y agoThey already have an order of magnitude more users than Mastodon has. It doesn't seem necessary for bootstrapping.
- phailhaus 3y agoTwo orders of magnitude. Mastodon is sitting at around 1.5M users, while Threads already has 100M. They really don't need Mastodon at all.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago> Mastodon is sitting at around 1.5M users, I've seen a stat of over 13m users: https://mastodon.social/@mastodonusercount https://mastodon.social/@mastodonusercount
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoLet's be honest about what Threads has. 1. A lot of Instagram users who had an extremely low barrier to entry, which could mean a low intention to post. 2. Little organic content. 3. Influencers and bots wanting to be "First!". 4. The people hyping it are almost exclusively using it to hate on Musk. Not Twitter, but Musk. Very few people are actually excited about giving Meta more data. I don't user any of this garbage so I don't know or care. But I think it's entirely reasonable to acknowledge that the people on Mastadon want to post and use it, and that bots basically have no interest. It's small, but actually organic content.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoAnd the larger Mastodon instances aren't going to connect to Threads either: 1) to protect their users from Meta inhaling user data, and as a source of spam, harassment etc. If Threads is not defederated upfront, it would be blocked soon after. 2) The sheer volume from the data from Threads is not going to be manageable. So stop pretending that they are.
- capableweb 3y ago> to protect their users from Meta inhaling user data If you're running a public Mastodon instance, Facebook has surely, one way or another, managed to "inhale" your user data, at least for market research. Only way to avoid that is to run a private instance, and then connecting to Threads/Facebook/Meta wouldn't be a threat regardless.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago> to protect their users from Meta inhaling user data, and as a source of spam, harassment etc. If Threads is not defederated upfront, it would be blocked soon after. Mastodon doesn't protect user data in any meaningful way. That data is all available to meta if they want it.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago> Mastodon doesn't protect user data in any meaningful way That may be true (yes, I've seen Bloonface's essay on this), but it doesn't mean that Threads will be federated with the rest of Mastodon, i.e. allowing user interaction across instances, threads content showing up on other mastodon user's feeds and vice versa. Blocking that is what "defederated" means. https://me.pcmag.com/en/social-media-1/18060/threads-wants-to-join-the-fediverse-but-some-mastodon-users-say-no-way https://me.pcmag.com/en/social-media-1/18060/threads-wants-t... https://fedipact.veganism.social/ https://fedipact.veganism.social/
- dawnerd 3y agoSo a post with no real substance on why it’ll never happen other than “companies lie” yet Mera is out advertising the fact multiple places they will be mastodon compatible including messaging to influencers that their data and followers will be portable. This is likely being done purely from a EU regulatory standpoint but if they were lying about it they wouldn’t be making a big deal about it. Also likely they see the future of social changing and would rather be the ones steering the standard.
- colordrops 3y agoWhen was the last time you saw one of these megacorps moving towards decentralization rather than away from it? I can't think of a single example. It seems fair to be skeptical.
- acdha 3y agoIt’s fair but skepticism needs to be informed. For example, Meta has made multiple public statements about federation. It’s certainly not like they can’t change their minds but there’s a risk to that in the current regulatory climate.
- bobthecowboy 3y ago> For example, Meta has made multiple public statements about federation. These are worth nothing, though? The skepticism is informed by looking at the history of the company, not just what they're saying right now. FWIW, I do think they will federate eventually. I don't think they'll do so because they want user accounts to actually move around, etc, etc. Strategically, it's valuable to keep a handle on the Fediverse, since they're big enough to exert control over it should they so choose, and they can be better positioned to do so if they start from a position of being federated.
- mrguyorama 3y agoLike the time they promised they wouldn't connect the Whatsapp phone number database to facebook?
- hospitalJail 3y agoI just lol at anyone who thinks Facebook is going to do a good job. They pushed so much ragebait in 2016-2021 on facebook. They continue to push so much coombait on IG. Like, they know how to manipulate us, they have the data. Wonder what they are going to use to bait people into compulsively checking this new app.
- scubbo 3y agoI don't think I've encountered anyone who thinks Facebook is going to do "a job that is good for customers". I do believe they're going to a pretty _effective_ job of serving their own interests.
- capableweb 3y agoWhile trying to figure what "coombait" means, I found another comment of yours, which is essentially the same as this one, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36637971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36637971 That doesn't seem very "novel" :) Which, also contained the answer to what "coombait" is: > What is 'coombait'? > Porn adjacent material. Technically SFW usually but not the kind of thing you want your coworkers seeing you look at.
- hospitalJail 3y agoThanks for creeping me out a bit. Means I need to take a break from HN.
- xeromal 3y agoYeah, it almost reads derogatory. Thanks for looking it up. Strange word
- beepbooptheory 3y agoCan someone explain what this coombait is? Is it like an anti-porn moral issue? It seems to be more of like a TVTropes-type term when I try to look it up, confused by how people use it on this website.
- 3y ago
- dannyobrien 3y agoThe current odds on Manifold, a prediction market which uses imaginary internet money (not crypto, real imaginary internet money), are currently 53% for the end of the year. Easy way to double your imaginary internet money if you're confident of the real answer. https://manifold.markets/tb/will-metas-threads-successfully-int?r=RGFubnlPQnJpZW4 https://manifold.markets/tb/will-metas-threads-successfully-...
- capableweb 3y ago> Mana (Ṁ) is Manifold's play money. Use it to create and bet in questions. Mana can't be converted into cash, but can be purchased and donated to charity at a ratio of Ṁ100 : $1. Am I missing something here or are they saying "I'm allowed" to buy my own Mana in order to donate 1% of what I purchased to charity? Doesn't make much sense, or I'm not understanding it at all. I'm betting all my Mana on the latter.
- hiddencost 3y agoPresumably you can buy at a rate of M100 : $1, too. So yes, you're missing something. (I suspect that they may take a tax write off out of the deal, so are somehow still profiting.)
- sushid 3y agoI have not used the site but going through their FAQ, it looks like you have the ability to 1) buy more Mana and 2) Convert your Mana into charitable donations (that is paid not by you, but Manifold) [0] [0] - https://manifoldmarkets.notion.site/Charitable-donation-program-668d55f4ded147cf8cf1282a007fb005 https://manifoldmarkets.notion.site/Charitable-donation-prog...
- pityJuke 3y agoThey have made a concerted effort to build up the groundwork - UI elements that make no sense if you aren't federating and the sign-up prompt explictly mentioning Mastodon. Hell, you've got engineers and management over there still talking about it as if it'll happen. But you should probably treat it like you should treat phone manufacturers saying the next software update will solve all of the problems - you can only review what you have now, not what'll come in the future.
- bradgessler 3y agoThe likely scenario is Facebook will figure out some way of displaying ads to Mastodon users and impose that as an interoperability requirement.
- ahahahahah 3y agoI doubt facebook will want to show ads where they don't have any control over the context that they are shown in due to the insane difficulty of dealing with brand safety once you do that. This is almost certainly a big reason reddit never tried to support advertising in 3rd party clients.
- paxys 3y agoNope, they want the opposite – for you to stay in the Threads app and get tracked/watch ads. The fact that you can pull content from all over the Fediverse in the app to stay busy is just a bonus. They are now able to monetize all that content for free.
- fredgrott 3y agoAs I understand it... 1. Twitter founder founded BlueSky as he was distressed with things he had to do to get capital and wanted a twitter successor that is community based and funded...hence bluesky's out in the open connection to mastadon via similar protocols. 2. Meta Threads is just way to revitalize FB which has an advertising spying on users upcoming problem with EU out lawing it. Hence Meta's focus on US market solution only.
- chimeracoder 3y ago> Twitter founder founded BlueSky as he was distressed with things he had to do to get capital and wanted a twitter successor that is community based and funded...hence bluesky's out in the open connection to mastadon via similar protocols BlueSky doesn't connect to Mastodon. It uses a different protocol for federation.
- jarym 3y agoI think it will connect to it, and then if it works well they might let it die off like Google did with GoogleTalk + XMPP (Jabber).
- sitzkrieg 3y agoone day people will say fediverse versus mastodon. like i get it but these crowds are usually way more pedantic about protocols
- nimbius 3y agoMeta has no incentive to add Mastodon/ActivityPub integration ever. Things like mastodon represent a Jailbreaking of the captive user. If the goal is to monetize the consumer as the product, you could do no worse than to free that consumer from the cattle yard and offer them the ability to graze at their discretion alone.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago> Meta has no incentive to add Mastodon/ActivityPub integration ever. Given regulatory issues with data sharing between different Meta properties they have a massive incentive to add activitypub support. It would be an easy way to appease to the regulators.
- s3p 3y agoAnd yet they’re doing it anyway! Maybe their goal actually isn’t to monetize the user this time. They haven’t even put ads on the platform yet, and senior leadership said ads weren’t even in the conversation about product development yet. Maybe the goal is to create a new social network to fill the void that Elon’s Twitter 2.0 left. Maybe a company can actually do a genuinely decent thing every once in a while…
- bmarquez 3y ago> Maybe a company can actually do a genuinely decent thing every once in a while Sure. But I have zero confidence, based on previous actions, that company is Facebook/Meta.
- leni536 3y agoRemember XMPP and how it was embraced by both Google and Facebook?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- paxys 3y agoHere's a much more reasonable and informed take on the topic, straight from Mastodon's CEO/founder – https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2023/07/what-to-know-about-threads https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2023/07/what-to-know-about-thr.... Threads will support ActivityPub. They already have UI elements in place for it in the app (like showing your home server domain on your profile), so there's no reason to believe that isn't their intention. The problem, if any, will be on the other end. Plenty of Mastodon/Fediverse servers have already stated their intention of blocking Meta's access to their networks, so even in the best case the end result will be a fragmented mess.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- benatkin 3y ago> straight from Mastodon's CEO/founder That's the second link in the article. The CEO/founder of Mastodon isn't uniquely positioned to predict Facebook's behavior.
- paxys 3y agoSure, but what new insight has knollslaw.substack.com brought to this topic other than "Companies make big launch promises all the time that don’t ever pan out"?
- benatkin 3y agoThe topic of the thread, that we shouldn't trust facebook. Replacing it with that article would change the topic. Sure if we change the topic, that article is more insightful. But this thread is about TFA.
- chrisnight 3y agoNot to mention they’ve already held meetings with Fediverse instance admins under NDA about something a while ago [1]. So not only is it their stated plan, they’ve clearly contributed resources to research aswell and still announced the plan after these meetings took place. Likely certain instances have said they’ll federate with it in the meetings, and for other instances that block them Meta will say “Well your admins are the ones who blocked us! Take your problems up with them” to any users that wish to interact with Threads on their instance. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36384207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36384207
- init2null 3y agoEveryone seems to ignore that Threads may be interested in the rest of Fediverse: Wordpress and (if it ever integrates) Tumblr. It also secures them easy access to any other potential developments, such as Lemmy. While Fediverse integration adds moderation complexity, I see few downsides for them to integrate and stay integrated. The portion of Mastodon that hates Facebook seems determined to segregate itself.
- kabanossen 3y agoSupporting ActivityPub can be done in a million ways and Facebook will likely do it in a way where they keep control of users. If you think they won't, mention something they have done where users remain in control of... anything?
- npteljes 3y agoAfter Facebook Chat and Google dropped XMPP, I don't think professionals can be expected to believe that support of open standards will happen. It's a simple business move, to lock people in, and recent business history also showed that people don't mind this much, as in, they won't leave for a more open product on this principle alone. So what we can expect is more lock-in.