4 ms·

In theory it shouldn't be hard to block Threads. If they're only using one domain for all their users it's trivial to block it. But privacy is not the issue wi

In theory it shouldn't be hard to block Threads. If they're only using one domain for all their users it's trivial to block it. But privacy is not the issue with Threads. The issue with Threads is that they're going to attempt to destroy the Fediverse through standard Embrace, Extend, Destroy tactics. You see this with Bluesky as well. The point is to interoperate when it's in your interests and then break interoperability when you have enough of the audience. Thus, thereby capturing the lion's share of the audience. Just wait. Threads will soon have a 'new feature' that only works with Threads and that does not work on other Fediverse nodes. Then they'll try and poison the standards bodies working on ActivityPub. They could increase the velocity of new 'features' to ActivityPub so fast that unpaid OSS developers couldn't keep up. Like Google and that cartel do with browsers. Eventually Meta and maybe a couple other large players will control the standards, or atleast make it obtuse enough to prevent new entrants. This playbook is tried and true.

nologic01 3y ago
This feels like irrational fear. The subversion of the original Web took decades to happen, a lot of complacency, lack of reflexes and the moral degeneration that allowed surveillance capitalism to become hugely profitable. For sure Meta cannot be trusted to be up to anything kosher especially since social media tech is close to the money spinning core of the Death Star. But what "stolen" audience are you worried about? The existing million or so fediverse users that will be lured back into the lethal embrace of the move-fast-and-break-things brigade? Future fediverse users that cant tell whether they are joining a surveillance apparatus or, e.g. their local community instance? Threads is currently cannibalising Instagram in the hope, pressumably, of grabbing some pieces from the decaying corpse of Twitter. All quite morbid affairs that dont have overlap with the migrants escaping to build a new life in the fediverse. The issue of subverting the fediverse standards is more serious - in principle. But the tangible threat is not clear (to me at least). E.g., the protocols are low level, minimum interop standard, they specify nothing about how server platforms can (ab)use their users. This is all down to implementations. In any case if you dont want corporate control of a standard make sure you dont take any corporate money and if they insist to join the fediverse party give them one vote like every other solo fediverse pioneer. The fediverse is being noticed. Thats a good thing. Savvy PR by fediversians could spin Meta's "interest" in the project to open doors that they could not dream of. Granted PR and marketing is not the fediverse's strong point. Its better this way even if it makes the job of adoption harder. But lets not get scared by shadows.

nologic01 3y ago

This feels like irrational fear. The subversion of the original Web took decades to happen, a lot of complacency, lack of reflexes and the moral degeneration that allowed surveillance capitalism to become hugely profitable. For sure Meta cannot be trusted to be up to anything kosher especially since social media tech is close to the money spinning core of the Death Star. But what "stolen" audience are you worried about? The existing million or so fediverse users that will be lured back into the lethal embrace of the move-fast-and-break-things brigade? Future fediverse users that cant tell whether they are joining a surveillance apparatus or, e.g. their local community instance? Threads is currently cannibalising Instagram in the hope, pressumably, of grabbing some pieces from the decaying corpse of Twitter. All quite morbid affairs that dont have overlap with the migrants escaping to build a new life in the fediverse. The issue of subverting the fediverse standards is more serious - in principle. But the tangible threat is not clear (to me at least). E.g., the protocols are low level, minimum interop standard, they specify nothing about how server platforms can (ab)use their users. This is all down to implementations. In any case if you dont want corporate control of a standard make sure you dont take any corporate money and if they insist to join the fediverse party give them one vote like every other solo fediverse pioneer. The fediverse is being noticed. Thats a good thing. Savvy PR by fediversians could spin Meta's "interest" in the project to open doors that they could not dream of. Granted PR and marketing is not the fediverse's strong point. Its better this way even if it makes the job of adoption harder. But lets not get scared by shadows.