I totally agree with him. This will bring more people to the fediverse once they realize they can interact with their friends on Threads
I totally agree with him. This will bring more people to the fediverse once they realize they can interact with their friends on Threads
You can hardly kill a decentralized network. Even if we fall back to field 1. People who actively chose freedom will stay.
XMPP has entered the chat.
Yeah why? Wanna chat?
You can: by making it irrelevant. It’s not dead then, but not used also. And that is what’s planned here.
Threads is already much much igger than the entire Fediverse, I don’t see what is there to lose?
Currently tge Fediverse is mostly drawing in tech geeks, which are unlikely to leave either way. Federation with Threads might actually pull in “normal” users.
A natural network effect will pull in users in a network. Watering down our decentralized network with Metas network will make all of Fediverses advantages indistinguishable from the users perspective. Decentralization is not something you experience as a user anyway so there will be no obvious reason for someone coming from threads to switch over to the Fediverese. The other way round is more likely. Meta has insane design and market power to push out better Apps, faster CDNs and marketing to give users a better “Fediverse”.
That solely depends on you! There will always be a need for a decentralized open source social media network and as long as there isn’t any other alternative that can achieve that the people who rely on it won’t go anywhere.
Yes, but I advocate for decentralized social media to become the status quo and not the fallback role when corpo controlled media ends it’s life cycle via enshittification again.
You can only act yourself and try to convince others. So yes federating with threads seems to be a big step in that direction.
It’s already irrelevant, it’s never been. The Fediverse is well over a decade old and most people don’t know it exists.
It’s irrelevant to you, but a community doesn’t have to be massive for it to be important to it’s users, it just has to be big enough for people to get something out of it regularly to keep the existing userbase engaged. Lemmy pre-migration is a great example. But if enough people leave in a short timespan it’s really hard to keep the remaining userbase engaged after that drop-off. XMPP is a good example of this actually happening, I had a bunch of friends on there for years. When google pulled the rug, a lot of users lost a lot of their reasons for sticking around. It’s a shell of itself now.
XMPP was largely irrelevant before Google and went back to being that way after Google and a bunch of newer tech. It wasn’t directly connected to Google. Nothing outside of someone’s blog would even indicate that. I didn’t say it’s irrelevant to me. To me is not important. Globally and in terms of social media it is in fact irrelevant. Not even sure why you said irrelevant to me that doesn’t even match the context
I had a community of people I would talk to on XMPP, the introduction of gchat brought more a lot more users we could IM with, gchat broke off from XMPP and most of my friends abandoned XMPP to stay with the userbase on gchat. I stayed logged on to XMPP for a while, a couple people did, but most of our discussions had moved to gchat. How can I come to any conclusion other than that this was connected to gchat?
The person you replied to was talking about killing an existing social network by making it irrelevant. A community can definitely be alive while being irrelevant “globally and in terms of social media”. It dies when it loses relevance to its userbase.
Relatively, yes. But look at what happened in the last two years: https://fedidb.org/