Wired used to have actual journalists. How far they have fallen…
Comment on What Meta’s Fediverse Plans Mean for Threads Users
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 months agoYeah, the whole article is like that. Not only is the writer apparently clueless enough to get basic facts about Mastodon wrong, but each one is wrong in with a flavor of a Facebook-favoring way (like implying in several different subtle ways that Mastodon includes some sort of harmful behavior or some limitation, and we need to carefully monitor to make sure it doesn't negatively impact any Facebook users, and that's the issue). And, there's absolutely no curiosity or follow-up question even after statements that are clearly inviting them.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
nicetriangle@kbin.social 3 months ago
Funny thing is that the mainstream threads audience would probably do more harm to the mastodon ecosystem by orders of magnitude.
There is a big cultural disconnect. I’m active in both and they are very different communities by and large.
dameoutlaw@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
This is an odd take and not even close. It is in fact the Fediverse that would be more harmful. Meta has laws and government scrutiny. There’s a lot of willing filth on the Fediverse. Blocking instances more so became a think the last 1-2 years. Blocking those instances does not mean they don’t exist. Can you find harmful content on Meta’s platform? Sure but that’s mostly due to volume. Where as there’s Fediverse instances straight up for illegal and gross content