People keep parroting that Threads will kill us all but won’t explain how it could happen to the fediverse. As in, actual steps. Because Flipboard federated and I’m not flooded with news posts. Mastodon is used for Nazi instances and I’m not flooded by Nazi content, even if the maintainer don’t block that particular instace due to not knowing it exists.
No, XMP is not a valid example. It requires specific people to be on that specific platform for you to connect with them, like iMessage and WhatsApp. The fediverse is nothing like that.
Can someone explain exactly how EEE will happen? Technically? Other than FUD?
EDIT: thank you all for the replies, there’s definitely some good points that are worth considering that I couldn’t find elsewhere.
Threads will want to implement post reactions to maintain parity with Facebook.
Threads expands the ActivityPub spec to include reactions.
Now, every other instance will not be compatible with reactions. Users complain they cannot see reactions.
Admins have two choices now:
Refuse to implement reactions because they are not part of the spec. Users leave and join threads.
ActivityPub adds reactions to the standard, all instances must now support reactions. Meta has now started dictating the spec.
I feel the XMP fears do have some sentiment, and it’s really a matter of how the broad username interprets these issues (including the Thread users which would be family and friends).
I don’t think so. There are tons of ActivityPub implementations out there already that don’t even support all parts of the official spec (Lemmy can’t display attached images, for example). There are also implementations that have tacked on additional functionality beyond the official spec (again, Lemmy’s downvotes).
It’s a very flexible protocol that allows developers to pick and choose what features they want to implement in their services.
There are tons of ActivityPub implementations out there already
but none are widely used by such a massive amount of people as threads, and especially people who don’t understand/care about spec compliance or even how federation works
honestly, i think in the best scenario, threads will create their own activitypub “fork”, and most instances won’t want to follow it, forcing the people who were on non-threads instances to chose between going to threads to keep in touch with their threads mutuals, or staying on non-threads instances and no longer having a reliable way of keeping in touch with those people.
worst case would be instances following what meta does and making them the spec dictators pretty much, the spec would become closed source and all other fedi implementations would lag behind in features compared to threads, and they can at any point change the spec and break other instances.
i think the point of defederating with threads isn’t just the defederation, but is about sending a message that we don’t want to play their game, we want to keep doing our things our ways. if they want to interract with the fediverse, they’ll have to play by our rules, we don’t want to follow theirs
There is an assumption that any changes or additions Threads may make to their implementation of ActivityPub beyond the official spec will break compatibility with other instances. It won’t though, that’s the point I was trying to make above.
Any additions they may want to make can absolutly be added on top of the existing official spec without breaking compatibility. Lemmy has downvotes but can still read comments and posts by Mastodon users. Mastodon users can post to Lemmy communities. You can see Pixelfed pictures on Kbin. Kbin posts can be read on Misskey. Misskey posts are visible on Mastodon.
All of these services have features that don’t exist elsewhere, built outside of the existing spec, but the core content is all interoperable. Anything Threads may want to add can be done without destroying spec compatibility. Sure, they could still make a change that intentionally breaks compatibility, but why would they? Theres nothing in it for them. No one who’s here is going to leave just because the Threads users are gone. The Threads users are already absent and we’re all still here.
Sure, they could still make a change that intentionally breaks compatibility, but why would they?
This is the kind of naivety that gets us deepthroated.
If they’re “definitely not going to” then they don’t need the power to, yes? They should agree to our terms.
No one who’s here is going to leave just because the Threads users are gone.
I’m only here, specifically here, because communities I liked on Reddit pulled me. Granted, I like it here, but no platform is worth more than its content. If people get used to threads and threads leaves, people will leave with threads.
i just want to point out that, in the same way XMP is not a valid example of EEE, neither is Flipboard a good example of a massive megacorp federating. Flipboard’s algorithms have never incited violence in Myanmar and that makes 100% of the difference.
my concern is not EEE, and I agree that i don’t get why that’s the focus.
my concern is that we are dealing with Meta—an absolutely massive, soulless corporation which has shown dozen upon hundreds of times that it will prioritizethegrowth of its shareholders’ paycheck well before the afterthought of caring if its algorithms end up wreaking addiction and violence.
call that FUD if you want, i call it learning from well-documented experience.
Again, you’re not actually making an argument about meta doing anything to make the fediverse worse than it is, you’re not even arguing that metas actions in those other situations are directly applicable and will happen here, you’re just saying “look at these bad things that Meta did before, sure other bad things must happen”.
That is the literal textbook definition of a FUD argument.
There’s no good product that Meta has ever touched that’s been made better after their involvement. Why go for bat for a company that has consistently shown it’s goal is to make things worse for the end user?
Let’s flip this around: Show me a thing that Meta has touched that hasn’t turned to shit. Why risk the same fate when we don’t have to? What is meta bringing to the table that would warrant foolhardiness on our part?
See the opposite of FUD is naivete, hubris, make-believe, not something one wants to be engaged in either.
Well look, I don’t have enough insight into the design or backend for Lemmy or mastodon, but Facebook has heavily invested into their network, and likely aims to grow.
How could they do that? All of this seems blockable on the client end (meaning I’m not good/shitty enough to work at Facebook) but imagine:
an algorithm takes a selection of high ranking fb posts and cross-posts to Lemmy, far faster and more frequently than regular users. Oh, you’ll need to login to read.
threads could wholesale repost other users and their comments, but behind a threads login wall
Basically do some scummy behavior using our public statements, questions and comments, all to get more attention devoted to what’s happening on their site (and its associated ads).
People keep parroting that Threads will kill us all but won’t explain how it could happen to the fediverse. As in, actual steps. Because Flipboard federated and I’m not flooded with news posts. Mastodon is used for Nazi instances and I’m not flooded by Nazi content, even if the maintainer don’t block that particular instace due to not knowing it exists.
No, XMP is not a valid example. It requires specific people to be on that specific platform for you to connect with them, like iMessage and WhatsApp. The fediverse is nothing like that.
Can someone explain exactly how EEE will happen? Technically? Other than FUD?
EDIT: thank you all for the replies, there’s definitely some good points that are worth considering that I couldn’t find elsewhere.
Here’s an example I can see happening.
Threads will want to implement post reactions to maintain parity with Facebook. Threads expands the ActivityPub spec to include reactions.
Now, every other instance will not be compatible with reactions. Users complain they cannot see reactions.
Admins have two choices now:
Refuse to implement reactions because they are not part of the spec. Users leave and join threads.
ActivityPub adds reactions to the standard, all instances must now support reactions. Meta has now started dictating the spec.
I feel the XMP fears do have some sentiment, and it’s really a matter of how the broad username interprets these issues (including the Thread users which would be family and friends).
I don’t think so. There are tons of ActivityPub implementations out there already that don’t even support all parts of the official spec (Lemmy can’t display attached images, for example). There are also implementations that have tacked on additional functionality beyond the official spec (again, Lemmy’s downvotes).
It’s a very flexible protocol that allows developers to pick and choose what features they want to implement in their services.
but none are widely used by such a massive amount of people as threads, and especially people who don’t understand/care about spec compliance or even how federation works
honestly, i think in the best scenario, threads will create their own activitypub “fork”, and most instances won’t want to follow it, forcing the people who were on non-threads instances to chose between going to threads to keep in touch with their threads mutuals, or staying on non-threads instances and no longer having a reliable way of keeping in touch with those people.
worst case would be instances following what meta does and making them the spec dictators pretty much, the spec would become closed source and all other fedi implementations would lag behind in features compared to threads, and they can at any point change the spec and break other instances.
i think the point of defederating with threads isn’t just the defederation, but is about sending a message that we don’t want to play their game, we want to keep doing our things our ways. if they want to interract with the fediverse, they’ll have to play by our rules, we don’t want to follow theirs
There is an assumption that any changes or additions Threads may make to their implementation of ActivityPub beyond the official spec will break compatibility with other instances. It won’t though, that’s the point I was trying to make above.
Any additions they may want to make can absolutly be added on top of the existing official spec without breaking compatibility. Lemmy has downvotes but can still read comments and posts by Mastodon users. Mastodon users can post to Lemmy communities. You can see Pixelfed pictures on Kbin. Kbin posts can be read on Misskey. Misskey posts are visible on Mastodon.
All of these services have features that don’t exist elsewhere, built outside of the existing spec, but the core content is all interoperable. Anything Threads may want to add can be done without destroying spec compatibility. Sure, they could still make a change that intentionally breaks compatibility, but why would they? Theres nothing in it for them. No one who’s here is going to leave just because the Threads users are gone. The Threads users are already absent and we’re all still here.
This is the kind of naivety that gets us deepthroated.
If they’re “definitely not going to” then they don’t need the power to, yes? They should agree to our terms.
I’m only here, specifically here, because communities I liked on Reddit pulled me. Granted, I like it here, but no platform is worth more than its content. If people get used to threads and threads leaves, people will leave with threads.
i just want to point out that, in the same way XMP is not a valid example of EEE, neither is Flipboard a good example of a massive megacorp federating. Flipboard’s algorithms have never incited violence in Myanmar and that makes 100% of the difference.
my concern is not EEE, and I agree that i don’t get why that’s the focus.
my concern is that we are dealing with Meta—an absolutely massive, soulless corporation which has shown dozen upon hundreds of times that it will prioritize the growth of its shareholders’ paycheck well before the afterthought of caring if its algorithms end up wreaking addiction and violence.
call that FUD if you want, i call it learning from well-documented experience.
Again, you’re not actually making an argument about meta doing anything to make the fediverse worse than it is, you’re not even arguing that metas actions in those other situations are directly applicable and will happen here, you’re just saying “look at these bad things that Meta did before, sure other bad things must happen”.
That is the literal textbook definition of a FUD argument.
There’s no good product that Meta has ever touched that’s been made better after their involvement. Why go for bat for a company that has consistently shown it’s goal is to make things worse for the end user?
Let’s flip this around: Show me a thing that Meta has touched that hasn’t turned to shit. Why risk the same fate when we don’t have to? What is meta bringing to the table that would warrant foolhardiness on our part?
See the opposite of FUD is naivete, hubris, make-believe, not something one wants to be engaged in either.
Well look, I don’t have enough insight into the design or backend for Lemmy or mastodon, but Facebook has heavily invested into their network, and likely aims to grow.
How could they do that? All of this seems blockable on the client end (meaning I’m not good/shitty enough to work at Facebook) but imagine:
Basically do some scummy behavior using our public statements, questions and comments, all to get more attention devoted to what’s happening on their site (and its associated ads).