|
Top-level
@avrin @stux Once upon a time, they did this with XMPP. This is not new, this is not unsubstantiated, this is what they've been doing for YEARS. They have the resources to pull it off, the will, the motivation, and a history of it. This isn't vague reactionary bullshit that I'm pulling out of my ass. This is a likely risk and known factor. 8 comments
Oh, if only. You misunderstand yet again. They will provide a *better* service that ye old FOSS contributor will not be able to provide. They will extend the software, improve it. It'll be great. It'll be amazing. Until they reach market dominance and then start strangling their users for cash. They'll aggressively choke out Mastodon and steal potential adoption numbers. This is the game plan. It always has been. @avrin @stux You say it won't harm us, but it will. People who are on here, or would've been on here, will instead be on there. It'll be an opportunity cost, at the very least. And who was to say that I don't care about the people on that platform anyways? It's amoral to me to be complacent in that. @scirave @stux for one, they made an account there. it is what is. two, having an easier, more recognizable process to getting into the fediverse will only make people realize they should be elsewhere more. anyone that won't move wouldn't have had it never existed. people that are already here aren't gonna move to meta's instance, it's a non issue. @avrin @stux For one, I've been increasingly aware that there are *plenty* of people who would move solely to be in the same place as their friends, followers, and favorite figures. There was a notable amount of attention generated from BlueSky. There is an audience here, I'm not saying it's large. Secondly, more exposure to the fediverse isn't going to fix the E.E.E. issue, what are you not getting here? I came here to be outside corporate influence and not to participate. Many of us did. People moving to FB's "Threads" isn't going to translate to sizable portions moving to Mastodon or other federated services. They are a corporation, they're doing this to springboard. There is no intention to support federation for any longer than it directly benefits them. At the very best? We simply give them free content and advertising. This is objectively bad. FB's history and operating procedures dictates that they'll end up harming users for profit. @avrin @stux They'll provide a better service. Leech potential users, and some existing users. They'll use our community to springboard engagement and showcase sustainability to investors. This is an attempt at prolonging their relevancy and using our services and communities to do it. There is absolutely no benefit here to federate. Them "supporting federation" publicly and having such tools will literally be the extent of the advertising we get from it. There's no reason to let them in. @avrin @stux I want to be wrong. I want to be so, so, so wrong. I hope that I'm wrong. I hope by some miracle, Zuck's heart grew thrice as big overnight and made him all nice and fuzzy inside over the idea of helping a fellow man out. But I severely doubt it. People, discourse, social spaces, will all be damaged and hurt. We will be protected, but not isolated from this. This is a problem. Why is it so hard to see the benefit from distrusting a so-easily-distrustable-provider? |
Gregory's Server
@scirave @stux except it still only hurts the users on their instance. people like us will only be federated to it.
that's the entire point of federation. if they want to gimp their service down the line, it's only hurting their own users. not us