3 ms·

While I do understand the argument made by the author, I am of the opinion that it's totally possible to damage some product/concept while being something separ

While I do understand the argument made by the author, I am of the opinion that it's totally possible to damage some product/concept while being something separate/different - which the author assumes could not happen: > Because Threads is not a Mastodon instance. It is its own self-contained, centralized social network with plans to let its users follow Mastodon accounts and vice versa. Spotify also is not podcasts, as they host the shows themselves. Podcast and its infrastructure should be unaffected by this following the author's logic. But it definitely affected how podcasts are consumed and perceived and it was not for the better of the open standard of podcasts. Nowadays many people think podcasts just are on Spotify.

JohnFen 3y ago
> Nowadays many people think podcasts just are on Spotify. They do?? This blew my mind, and made me very sad.
chipotle_coyote 3y ago
Author finding this thread very late! This is one of the better responses I’ve found. It doesn’t seem likely to me that many people will think Mastodon is just on Threads, but your counterexample about Spotify and podcasts doesn’t seem likely to me either — yet I know it’s true. So it’s definitely something to think about! I guess the flip side, though, is figuring out just how podcasts and their infrastructure have been affected. They’re still out there, still open, and over the last year, Spotify has been pulling back from investing in podcasts and making more of their previously Spotify-exclusive shows fully open again. I have no idea if there’s any analogy to make from that to Threads.