yar har

High seas time

Yes, I certainly constructed the sentence to highlight the different reactions. Later in the article I say “And by prioritizing their desire to be embraced by Meta over queer and trans people’s safety, Meta’s cis advocates undercut their claims to be allies in ways that may be hard to recover from” – which is true no matter what Meta does or doesn’t wind up doing with Threads. Of course it’s not the only thing going on, but I think it’s important enough that it’s worth highlighting.

I could have made that a lot longer, but I just wanted make a few points without creating a wall of text.

Of course there’s garbage you don’t want to see in a community. But the difference is there’s an actual human being I entrust to the task of removing it (the moderator). If I don’t like how a community is moderated, I can go to another community. Mods make these calls for the sake of quality and topicality of their particular community, not because of some ulterior motive.

This is in comparison to an institution of some kind using keyword algorithms to mindlessly remove intelligent discussion only because it may be against some kind of predetermined policy. The US government does this. They have official agents placed within the staff of major social media outlets for this purpose.

The only thing I said about Musk is that it’s a positive he tried to reduce censorship. I never implied that he removed censorship altogether. Twitter is still guilty of curating content same as the others. However Threads has flat out stated a full tilt censorship agenda.

Defederating isn’t the threat - the situation you describe would hurt the fediverse, but it would survive as you said.

You’re missing the far more insidious piece - changing the standards

So let’s say we have mastodon servers, threads, and maybe another player or two.

Context for my example - Lemmy and mastodon use paths, 0.<root post id>.<reply>.<reply reply>.<etc>

Facebook decides “path isn’t good enough for what we want, we’re changing the first number, always 0, and we’re going to set it to a number from 1 to 100000 that will encode topic, work appropriateness, and sentiment analysis into this value”.

Being the majority of the network, suddenly mastodon either throws out the threads content or the clients start breaking - the fix would be simple, but until that happens either they temporarily defederate or apps start crashing.

Either way, people are pissed - either their busy feed has suddenly gone quiet, or their app no longer works. It gets resolved in a few days, and now apps are able to do better sorting

The takeaway for most people is “mastodon sucked for a few days”

Now let’s say they use this sentiment analysis more deeply for the algorithm. They’ve got AI doing it, hell, they’re even being “good fediverse citizens” and running it on mastodon posts for free. Everything works better, you find stuff better, nsfw posts are better flagged, the clients add cool new features around it

Now, let’s say Facebook decides “mastodon is costing us server time, and we don’t make much off them. Let’s just show more threads content and only show replies and the top thousand mastodon posts each hour” Suddenly, mastodon users get much less engagement when they post.

Their takeaway is “mastodon isn’t as good for us as it used to be”

Maybe someone builds an open source system for mastodon to do classification. It’s much more expensive server-wise, so maybe only the top servers do it… But their posts get seen again, and everything is good again. People move to these servers or to threads so they can keep being discovered

Now, let’s say someone at Facebook goes “their classification isn’t as good as ours, and their nsfw tagging isn’t as good. Our advertisers would be pissed if they found out, let’s not sell ads on any post not classified by us just to be safe”. Someone else comes along and says “we’re leaving money on the table here, let’s show less of those posts”.

And kind of like this, these little decisions made with little malice would slowly choke out mastodon. With a dominant player, the little guys don’t need to be targeted - Facebook just has to put themselves first. And if you think a company would consistently pass up on profits or savings for a vague promise as years go by, I don’t know what to tell you

If threads is a more stable experience, only privacy minded people would pick mastodon. Even people that refuse to use threads on principle would be less likely to be active on mastodon

In reality, the decisions and side effects would probably be more subtle than this… But it doesn’t take much. They just have to occasionally make the fediverse feel buggy or unfinished in comparison, and it’ll forever become a place for enthusiasts and never as a serious option by the public at large

Comes to mind that personally I had no commitment to Jabber or Pidgin, it was only a means to talk to people I wanted to talk, which I remained able to do after they were dropped. But Lemmy and Mastodon are communities, it takes more than tinkering with the protocol to kill it.

They would have to convince people who are here because they are already sick of Big Tech social media, that going back to Meta, of all places, is the right move. If they can do that, then it’s not a matter of EEE or whatever, it’s that we failed to maintain a compelling community.

I believe in this place more than that. Which is why I believe that if integration came to pass, it’s more likely that we would gain users, who would peek through the Meta windows and notice that we are having a better experience.

I mentioned it 3 times in this last day since I read it! Maybe it is spreading.

I do it because I think it is the most important point on the fediverse. The fediverse is a tool of freedom, morals, ethics, for those that want to be connected, something that no commercial entity will offer. And it’s ok for it to not grow at all costs, or be the widespread available platform. It just needs to be present and faithful to itself.

Given how evil they are, this definitely seems plausible (although threats isn’t available in the EU and they are actively preventing usage in the EU). Another option is that they’re still out to kill the fediverse. That one honestly seems more likely to me, given how they’ve acted in the past (buying up platforms before they could outcompete them).

@nave @theneverfox believing is not knowing is speculation is not helping

Thats true. But this also means they didn’t get all their users because they have a good product to offer. But because they are one of the biggest players and the just exploited their market power to will something into existence.

This is also the reason why your opinion is a bit unpopular. They just have a history of exploiting things and using dark practices to achieve their goals.

And if their goal is to dominate and wipe out the fediverse… they have quite some power to leverage. As they demonstrated with this stunt.

(Also this is quite likely their goal, because that’s how capitalism and competition works.)

That just shows how little Eugen understands the privacy risks. Why just blocking Meta’s Threads won’t be enough to protect your privacy once they join the fediverse has an example of how federating with Meta can expose private data. And, data can be public but hard to discover (a profile for somebody who only makes followers-only and local-only posts); federating with Threads adds exposure.