|
Top-level
@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. 3 comments
@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
@avrin @stux
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.