There’s been a lot of speculation around what Threads will be and what it means for Mastodon. We’ve put together some of the most common questions and our responses based on what was launched today.
Affordability isn’t the issue when defederating. We have nothing to gain from them federating. I believe (given they are a multinational) that the automatic migration of accounts will only ever work in the direction TO threads, never the other way around. So, why are we federating with them again?
We absolutely do have something to gain and to lose, and that is users. Like it or not, the big players have the power to bring in massive number of people with marketing and brand recognition. And before you say to hell with Meta shills, if we fracture the fediverse in 2 parts, one federated with big players and the other without, I’d wager most users would prefer the first option when joining the fediverse.
Just for reference, Threads got 5ml sign-ups in the first 4 hours, while Mastadon total userbase is around 10ml
We don’t get the users on the Fediverse. Brand recognition is benefiting Meta only. They won’t advertise with ActivityPub, but will use it as a fig-leaf for the antitrust agencies, where they are under probation.
Your view of the situation is too narrow. It’s not about the individual, never has been. It’s about the survival of the network. Why would you invite somebody with known anti-competitive tendencies into your network? That just invites bad outcomes.
If I couldn’t manage to convince you specifically, this is too important to be taken lightly. You brushed off EEE without addressing the valid points. Please take some time to understand where the main point of the criticism lies and what is at stake.
I AM thinking about the survival of the network. It’s not the question of IF but WHEN they are gonna start pulling their usual BS. My point is, by federating with Threads we will expose more people to the fediverse, who might join us when the inevitable happens. Otherwise it’s just a missed opportunity.
Personally, I hate Meta and wish to have nothing to do with them but the truth is we have more to gain by federating than they do. I might be too optimistic but I believe Threads is doomed to fail. It’s basically a social network with worst of both worlds. Threads doesn’t offer the privacy and freedom the rest of the fediverse does while it lacks the user loyalty and established communities so it will be very difficult for them to attract advertisers. We’ve also seen how easy corpos axe their less succesful products so there’s a good chance we might even come out on top.
edit: I was wrong about the community aspect, apparently Thread is interconnected with instagram… EEE does seem more of a concern now.
You underestimate Meta’s resources or influence. They have the potential to influence user bases, use competitive pressure (features!) to draw people to their own instance or manipulate the platform (extend ActivityPub) to their advantage.
How many developers does the Fediverse “have”? A few part timers or Patreon financed developers which to tackle servers, apps, etc. Compare that with Meta’s (roughly and conservatively estimated) 10000 developers. There is no comparison. The Fediverse can’t compete.
Also, assuming the failing of Threads and using it as an excuse is reckless or at least irresponsible. The dangers we are facing right now are too big to be easily brushed of with a “will fail, meh”.
I think it is a mistake to underestimate Meta’s resolve here. They present a concrete danger to the wider Fediverse and we need to take it seriously.
It’s not only the defederation. It’s the message that it sends. Defederating “Threads” says: “We don’t see any value in this service. People who think like us shouldn’t join it.”
Don’t underestimate the power of influence we techies (or first movers) have. Regular people look to us for guidance on which service to choose from the wide variety out there.
If we say, “This doesn’t hold any value.” less people will choose it. The effect may be small, but it is there, and it is accumulative.
I guess that makes us both guilty of underestimating Meta’s resources and influence.
Even in an unlikely event that people would notice our existence, should we choose to preemptively defederate Meta, it is much more likely for Meta to push the narrative that ‘they’ were the ones who deferated us. No one’s gonna hear about our values and what we stand for, even if they did, why would they believe us over the platform which allegedly has the power to influence elections?
edit: They don’t even need to make stuff up, they can just say they were unable to guarantee a safe and well moderated space as a company if they were to stay federated.
Affordability isn’t the issue when defederating. We have nothing to gain from them federating. I believe (given they are a multinational) that the automatic migration of accounts will only ever work in the direction TO threads, never the other way around. So, why are we federating with them again?
We absolutely do have something to gain and to lose, and that is users. Like it or not, the big players have the power to bring in massive number of people with marketing and brand recognition. And before you say to hell with Meta shills, if we fracture the fediverse in 2 parts, one federated with big players and the other without, I’d wager most users would prefer the first option when joining the fediverse. Just for reference, Threads got 5ml sign-ups in the first 4 hours, while Mastadon total userbase is around 10ml
We don’t get the users on the Fediverse. Brand recognition is benefiting Meta only. They won’t advertise with ActivityPub, but will use it as a fig-leaf for the antitrust agencies, where they are under probation.
Your view of the situation is too narrow. It’s not about the individual, never has been. It’s about the survival of the network. Why would you invite somebody with known anti-competitive tendencies into your network? That just invites bad outcomes.
If I couldn’t manage to convince you specifically, this is too important to be taken lightly. You brushed off EEE without addressing the valid points. Please take some time to understand where the main point of the criticism lies and what is at stake.
I AM thinking about the survival of the network. It’s not the question of IF but WHEN they are gonna start pulling their usual BS. My point is, by federating with Threads we will expose more people to the fediverse, who might join us when the inevitable happens. Otherwise it’s just a missed opportunity. Personally, I hate Meta and wish to have nothing to do with them but the truth is we have more to gain by federating than they do. I might be too optimistic but I believe Threads is doomed to fail. It’s basically a social network with worst of both worlds. Threads doesn’t offer the privacy and freedom the rest of the fediverse does while it lacks the user loyalty and established communities so it will be very difficult for them to attract advertisers. We’ve also seen how easy corpos axe their less succesful products so there’s a good chance we might even come out on top.
edit: I was wrong about the community aspect, apparently Thread is interconnected with instagram… EEE does seem more of a concern now.
You underestimate Meta’s resources or influence. They have the potential to influence user bases, use competitive pressure (features!) to draw people to their own instance or manipulate the platform (extend ActivityPub) to their advantage.
How many developers does the Fediverse “have”? A few part timers or Patreon financed developers which to tackle servers, apps, etc. Compare that with Meta’s (roughly and conservatively estimated) 10000 developers. There is no comparison. The Fediverse can’t compete.
Also, assuming the failing of Threads and using it as an excuse is reckless or at least irresponsible. The dangers we are facing right now are too big to be easily brushed of with a “will fail, meh”.
I think it is a mistake to underestimate Meta’s resolve here. They present a concrete danger to the wider Fediverse and we need to take it seriously.
You are %100 correct, but I don’t understand how defederating Meta will change any of the things you pointed out?
It’s not only the defederation. It’s the message that it sends. Defederating “Threads” says: “We don’t see any value in this service. People who think like us shouldn’t join it.”
Don’t underestimate the power of influence we techies (or first movers) have. Regular people look to us for guidance on which service to choose from the wide variety out there.
If we say, “This doesn’t hold any value.” less people will choose it. The effect may be small, but it is there, and it is accumulative.
I guess that makes us both guilty of underestimating Meta’s resources and influence.
Even in an unlikely event that people would notice our existence, should we choose to preemptively defederate Meta, it is much more likely for Meta to push the narrative that ‘they’ were the ones who deferated us. No one’s gonna hear about our values and what we stand for, even if they did, why would they believe us over the platform which allegedly has the power to influence elections?
edit: They don’t even need to make stuff up, they can just say they were unable to guarantee a safe and well moderated space as a company if they were to stay federated.
While you’re right, they have massive influence, but we have the moral high ground.
The people we are close to, our friends, relatives, etc. will believe in us. That’s all we need, because this is the most sustainable growth there is.
We don’t need to spew marketing propaganda. We just need to stand our ground and not endorse companies which will operate opposite of our values.