main

1339 readers

4 users here now

Default community for midwest.social. Post questions about the instance or questions you want to ask other users here.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

seahorse@midwest.social

Meta's Threads.net (midwest.social)

submitted 1 year ago by Banzai51@midwest.social to c/main@midwest.social

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Are we going to block Meta's Threads.net? I get it if people want to keep things open. However, Meta is a proven bad actor. They claim they didn't put in ActivityPub because it was too complicated to get it done at launch, and they can't get EU approval of their service because of the rampant and invasive data they gather. IMHO, they are going to attempt to muscle the fediverse out of the equation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Blakerboy777@mastodon.online -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

@aberrate_junior_beatnik @niartenyaw how do you know that? Isn't it entirely possible that they just decided to build a Twitter knock off and realized that building off ActivityPub gave them a headstart and some good PR? Meta is a giant compared to the fediverse and it's trying to compete with other giants, not ants. Declaring we won't eat crumbs dropped from the giant's table isn't going to even be noticed by the giant. We get more out of federation than they do by a mile.

[–] niartenyaw@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

that's very fair, but i think they are going for control here.

their entire business model is to monetize via selling data and ads. so trivially they need users to give them data and see ads. to maximize this, they need to maximize the number of people using the app and the time each person spends using the app. both of these require control. easiest way is to lock in users via their network/communities being there while manipulating content to get people to spend more time.

open protocols are in direct opposition to this type of control. for instance, the tech giants see how they can't control email and hate it. they struggle to monetize it via their business model because ads and manipulation result in a terrible user experience. users will just leave and go to another provider (in this example, they obviously lose the domain unless they own and use a custom one). google killed the xmpp protocol with embrace, extend, extinguish for the same reason. as an open protocol gets going, it only gets harder for the tech giants to stop.

so, if they want to stay in control, they need to squash a federated platform as early as possible, the most proven strategy being embrace/extend/extinguish. so, given history, this is what the tech giants have planned for the fediverse.

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't it entirely possible that they just decided to build a Twitter knock off and realized that building off ActivityPub gave them a headstart and some good PR?

I mean sure but I don't see how that's in contradiction with what I said.

Declaring we won't eat crumbs dropped from the giant's table isn't going to even be noticed by the giant

So which is it? Do they get a headstart and good PR or are we completely insignificant? Seems like if we have the chance to deny them a headstart and good PR we should.

We get more out of federation than they do by a mile

I'm not getting anything out of it, and many others feel the same way. I'd be happier if they just made their own thing and left us alone.

[–] Blakerboy777@mastodon.online 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@aberrate_junior_beatnik the headstart I was referring to was in developing the technology. As you pointed out it would be hypocritical to cite the fediverse user base as a draw to using ActivityPub while simultaneously downplaying the size of the user base as insignificant. Sorry I wasn't clear what I was referring to.

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

That makes no sense. It would be much faster to simply not federate.