I’m not personally in favor of preemptively blocking threads on my instance and I don’t find the EEE argument at all convincing in this case. But other instances doing that is no problem at all, it’s fine!
Comment on 41% of fediverse instances have blocked threads so far!!!
otter@lemmy.ca 9 months agoWhat I hate to see, even in this thread, is people turning on each other in this “us vs. them”, “you’re either a part of the pact or you’re against us” nonsense
Let’s all remember why WE ALL CHOSE to get on the fediverse and build it. The strength of the fediverse comes from the freedom to choose how to run things. My understanding is that no one in an instance is harmed if some other instance chooses to federate or defederate from Threads.
I hate Meta, and what I know is that Meta doesn’t need to do anything to take down the fediverse if we do it ourselves.
bilb@lem.monster 9 months ago
Serinus@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’m also in favor of remaining defeated, but I certainly understand it’s a big risk. EEE is a real threat. On the other hand, something like Threads is the fast track to mainstreaming the Fediverse and really advancing us away from dependence on big tech
Big risk, big reward. The deciding factor for me is when on the fence I’d rather be inclusive. Creating a big fight against something I’m a bit skeptical of just isn’t worth it.
Deceptichum@kbin.social 9 months ago
You’re only a bit skeptical of Meta?
After all the dodgy shit they’ve done for 20 years and you’re only a bit skeptical?
520@kbin.social 9 months ago
If it was literally any other company I'd be much more willing to embrace it.
But Meta? Nah, they're too hellbent on a social media monopoly to consider a good thing.
sour@kbin.social 9 months ago
a house divided…
helenslunch@feddit.nl 9 months ago
My understanding is that no one in an instance is harmed if some other instance chooses to federate or defederate from Threads.
It does kinda hurt the Fediverse as a whole when it becomes so segregated.
scarabic@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Embrace, extend, destroy is a thing though.
otter@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
It is
I’m not sure if defederating is the correct counter to it
scarabic@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Defederating from known-bad-actor corporations during the “embrace” phase seems like a perfectly wise choice to me. Keeps them from getting to stage 2.
otter@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
It’s not about us embracing them, it’s about them embracing the protocol, which they can do whether we stay federated or not.
The argument against defederation is that it tells newcomers that the defederated instance is an island and they’re better off joining the place where they can talk to their friends. Meta can more easily extend if we’re not around to explain why extending is a bad thing, and if we’re not around to advocate for people to ditch Meta’s platform and join an open one
calvinbacon@r.nf 9 months ago
The fediverse can’t be all star trek memes, maybe go lay on the fainting couch if your blood sugar isn’t high enough
otter@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
What?
Pxtl@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Part of it is just today’s polarized political climate, especially since the popularity of the Fediverse is partially a backlash to reactionaries taking over Twitter and the corporate enshittification of Facebook and Reddit.
Everything is a war now, and solidarity and boycotts are basically the only tools that small, independent actors have. So people apply “don’t cross the picket line” thinking to everything, even where it doesn’t make sense.
Want to act properly? Contribute money and labour towards your instances. Help them build better moderation tools so they can handle the flood of crap from Threads, and onboarding tools and better UX so they can steal away the Threads users.
voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 9 months ago
“The flood of crap” isn’t what people should be worried about. They should be worried about Meta embracing, extending, and extinguishing the Fediverse. There’s a good article about this here. People are worried about the wrong things and don’t realize what’s at stake.
Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
The Ploum article again. Please explain how the circumstances with XMPP and ActivityPub are remotely similar.
voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Both are open protocols for communication over the Internet. Both have been adopted by a large corporate interest.
Now, how are they different?
Eldritch@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Well that and the story while not “wrong”, is definitely hyperbolic. The author even stated after stating that Google killed XMPP that they didn’t. So which is it? I’m not a dev, but an avid open source fan. i first tried Linux in 1995. Started using jabber itself in 1999 through Gaim. Later pidgin and psi clients in 2001-2. There were a ton of problems beyond Google. As far as clients were concerned there was no reference version. And there really were no large professionally run servers like mastodon.social or lemmy.world. People, myself included put too much hope in the Google basket. It was a massive unearned win in user count. That was just as easily lost. And kept people from focusing on the core service. Yes Google was never a good steward. Corporations never are. But the lack of official clients and servers, plus their decision to persue IETF standardization had as big or bigger impact on the services development and adoption.
The moral of the story isn’t that Google or anyone else can kill an open source project. Microsoft Google and many more have tried and failed. The moral is that we shouldn’t cater to them or give them special treatment. They aren’t the key to success.
moormaan@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Yes, yes and yes (I contribute money).
Pxtl@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Ditto. I also try to file good, clean bug reports with detailed repro steps where I hit them. Not just “it’s busted, fix it”. I’d love to contribute actual code, because I’d like to think I’m a really good programmer (been coding professionally for decades), but actually fully getting a hosted Masto instance up to the point where you can edit the code and see it live is a freaking nightmare.