Afaik, whenever an Activitypub instance has defederated from another it has always had to do with some combination of bad user behavior, poor moderation, and/or spam. Are the various instance admins who have decided to preemptively block threads.net simply convinced that these traits will be inevitable with it? Is it more of a symbolic move, because we all hate Meta? Or is the idea to just maintain a barrier (albeit a porous one) between us and the part of the Internet inhabited by our chuddy relatives?

(For my part, I'm working on setting up my own Lemmy and/or Pixelfed instance(s) and I do not currently intend to defederate.)

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

[–] ZagTheRaccoon@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

while it will draw more users into the fediverse, nearly all of them will join directly with threads
users who would have joined other instances will be parasited to threads as the safest best supported option
whatever threads does, other instances will be forced to copy or risk losing feature parity with the most important player in the space.
existing users will get accustomed to the content from threads as occupying the dominant super majority of content on the site.

Threads will essentially be the space, with all currently existing communities left as periphery. Which is very bad on it's own because the decentralized space is no longer decentralized, and in fact is in the hands of Meta.

Meta will eventually wall itself off because not having control of your users social graph is an unnecessary threat. And since they are the space, so they will lose very little by walling off. When they do wall off, the fediverse will have it's communities deeply intermingled with Meta, and when people lose most of their friends and content to meta walling themselves off - most are going to choose to relocate to meta.

Slowly growing the decentralized space organically is important to avoid this kind of stuff. If we allow someone to become the hyper-dominant instance, the principle of de-federation ceases to matter because they have so much controlling leverage over the users.

I do still think this is a good thing, but it's a complicated good thing that could do more damage. I am very worried that they aren't starting off federated. That also means their internal community norms will develop isolated from what fediverse has tried to establish.

[–] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am extremely skeptical of 2 and 3, because it means people who already decided to drop mainstream social media platforms will go back on their decision, and it suggests that people want instances to be more like Meta, rather than for it to function in a user driven way that provides things that Meta will never be willing to offer.

If people can be tempted off of the Fediverse so easily, the problem is not Meta. Keep in mind that right now people are already choosing not to engage with Facebook. I'm not naive to assume that they won't have appeal and influence and dirty tricks. but seems to me like such a complete lack of faith in the Fediverse to assume that if Meta merely exists alongside the ecosystem, it's inevitable that everyone will jump ship. That sounds like what they wanted was a Big Tech-driven platform all along.

I don't think that's right.

Comes to mind also that Mastodon has had many years of headstart. How much of a slow growth does it still need?

[–] ZagTheRaccoon@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Luckily, we'll find out not too long from now. Hope you're right.