I totally agree with him. This will bring more people to the fediverse once they realize they can interact with their friends on Threads
No, this will get people to leave Mastodon for Threads in droves. Really all Facebook is doing here is leaching users away from Mastodon. The average user doesn’t know or care about the “perks” of non-Facebook Mastodon instances that Eugene is talking about. They will go with the service with the most name recognition every time, rather than trust an independent, small-time instance operator.
Threads is just Facebook with ActivityPub compatibility and Facebook ads and tracking, so basically they are pulling people away from decentralized networks and back to being under their control. Then the network effects Eugene is talking about will kick in, but moving people away from Mastodon and toward Threads.
Then Facebook can quietly drop support for Mastodon compatibility. Embrace (is done), Extend (with search, advertising, and tracking), Extinguish, cut compatibility with non-Facebook instances and sink the decentralized network, then finally Enshittification.
I’m actually baffled that people are buying into facebooks shit. Zuck isn’t doing this because he wants to help the competition.
No, he’s doing it because otherwise he won’t be compliant with the Digital Market Act, as a “gatekeeper”. That’s why this is happening at the same time as launching in Europe.
If you’re already up and running on Mastodon and can interact with people on Threads, there’s literally no reason to swap one for the other.
I agree, but remember that the last step is to discontinue ActivityPub integration so people will move from mastodon over to threads to keep up with the content they got on mastodon from threads
If you’re already up and running on Mastodon and can interact with people on Threads, there’s literally no reason to swap one for the other.
This is about encouraging new users to join Facebook instead of one of those other Mastodon instances. Realistically, what percentage of people who join Threads will consider joining Mastodon or an independence instance instead when Facebook decides to drop support for Mastodon federation? I would guess that number at 1% or less. In other words, 99% of all Threads users are stuck there for the entire term of their service, never actually joining Mastodon.
The point of Facebook investing all of this money into setting up Threads is to eliminate competition from decentralized services. They are terrified that they are losing all of the control over the Internet that they have slowly acquired over the past 15 years or so, they are trying to take it back and destroy the competing network of federated independent services.
Why would they leave if Federation with Threads improves the experience of using Mastodon (you can follow many more peoole)? I hate Facebook as much as anyone, but I don’t get this argument at all.
If people just wanted an app with more recognition they would have never signed up to Mastodon in the first place.
They won’t at the start. But they will after they made friends on threads and then threads breaks the federation again. The people in threads will not move to the fediverse because most of the people they interact with are on threads. They might not even notice that the federation broke. But for the people on the fediverse it will feel as if a large part of their social circle just disappeared.
But before that threads will already make things worse for non threads users. They will start extending the protocol in such a way that fediverse servers won’t be able to keep up. They will find undefined cases in the protocol and start using them causing other servers to break/degrade. They will start one-sided slowdown of federation causing people to blame the server they are on instead of threads. Etc.
Nonsense. Even those of us who are on the Fedi most of the people we know are on the large platforms. They’re not forming new relationships. The point stands of the person you replied to, they would just continue using Big Social platforms. There’s 1.2 MAU which is nothing compared to all of Meta’s large platforms not even a blip. They’re not trying to steal Mastodon users
Those who forget the xmpp are doomed to repeat it (s mistakes)
That’s nonsense and you know it. Pull up real history of XMPP. XMPP was little known before Google and afterwards. That’s such a piss poor example
The average user doesn’t know or care about the “perks” of non-Facebook Mastodon instances that Eugene is talking about. They will go with the service with the most name recognition every time, rather than trust an independent, small-time instance operator.
Threads advertises itself as “interoperable with the Fediverse”, which will fuel curiosity in some users. And Mastodon isn’t only small-time operated instances. Creators of Vivaldi web browser created their Mastodon instance and bundle it with their browser account. Mozilla is preparing to do the same. Medium and Flipboard are another examples.
And of course, we have official instances of Mastodon, Pixelfed or e.g. /kbin.
Curious users can find the fediverse anyway if there were interested in changing social media platforms. Meta has NO good reasonable use to integrate the fediverse. Compared to Metas cumulative social media user size we are but a tiny hub of users. So here again: there is NO good reason for them to just causally go “oh hi guys, let’s be friends!” The only reason is to extinguish competition before it gets larger. It’s like Starbucks slapping down a store next to your local coffee shop because “wow we both like coffee, let’s be friends so our customers can enjoy coffee together and have a talk!” It’s a deceptive strategy.
In this reply you haven’t actually addressed any of the reasons I brought up for why federating with Threads is a horrible idea.
I so badly do not want this to be true but I think you’re right. Its basically a Shiticon Valley special.
I’m just gonna say this :
Fuck you Facebook and fuck big corporations.
Are there actually any worthwhile accounts to follow on Threads, or is it all just instagram-lite celeb worship? I don’t think this move is actually going to affect my mastodon instance at all.
At the moment it’s pretty much the latter.
Being able to interact with anyone regardless of what sites you’re members of is a good thing. That’s one of the main selling points of the Fediverse.
If it wasn’t for the fact that Zuckerberg is a conniving little shit, I’d agree.
Say it, he is a Jew and you hate him for it.
What? No, he’s a CEO and I hate him for it. Fuck billionaires.
Um, he’s a pretty shitty jew if that’s the tack you’re taking with this. Considering that honesty, community, and rendering aid are pretty big tenets of the faith.
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-settlement-ftc-billion-privacy-2019-7
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-china-tiktok-censorship-2019-10?r=US&IR=T
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-trump-protests-stance-costing-company-2020-6
I think what we’ll see is a fractured Activity Pub network. One mainstream and one for all the cool kids. If done right itll only be a gateway to other activity pub networks which to me is a good thing.
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/
