As a Mastodon/Fediverse user, I hope the rumors that this is based on ActivityPub are true. I'd love for there to be an easy-to-use interface for everyone that brings more people and content into the Fediverse.
"Soon, you'll be able to follow and interact with people on other fediverse platforms, such as Mastodon" Found in the app strings.
While I'm really looking forward to is being able to follow Threads users with any Mastodon client.
a) you don't give a damn about openness or tech or any of that but just want something that works
b) your first priorities are "where the people are" and "it works" but federated and open protocols are a big bonus
c) you absolutely want to go somewhere more open instead of another centralized service
Group A is big, and generally folks not on HN. HN itself splits between groups B and C.
If you think group B is a fair bit bigger than group C, but want the open stuff to thrive in the long term, then an initially-"friendly" Meta controlled app can harm you by attracting a big part of the people in group B and then slowly degrading the experience for folks using open clients over time until finally cutting it off. Most of group B won't migrate again at that point as long as they don't fuck up the experience completely.
Whereas if the Meta version wasn't "friendly" at first, much more of that group B might move straight to open things, and then stay there, creating a larger long-term userbase.
It's a way to keep people from fully jumping ship to open solutions by offering short-term openness that will dwindle over time.
If there are more Threads users than non-Threads users then non-Threads instance admins have to choose between adapt or risk emigration. EEE is a consolidation tactic after all.
Explain how a peer that is >100x the size of the Fediverse needs it at all.
Mastodon admins might find that law applies to them too.
It's the realm of pure fantasy to envision a world where the EU bans an original community project to force everyone into a Meta-designed fork. Mastodon users should be safe as long as they're free to run their own server and client software.
My point is that this really doesn't matter. If they use ActivityPub as-written, both clients and servers can stop Meta content from reaching their feed. If you just find Threads content annoying, you long-press the post and tap "Block Instance". If you're a site admin and have been given a legitimate reason to block Meta for API abuse (eg. poorly-moderated content, spam, advertisement) then you can exercise your defederation power and be within your right.
Further, interoperability concerns messaging apps, not social media apps.
Most ActivityPub services have taken ages to get decent apps and even now Mastodon has some obvious problems. Opening someone else's profile if nobody on your server follows them shows you a barren timeline with no history and there's still no way to tell Mastodon "go fetch toots from this user's outbox".
Money is power.
My own thoughts on this is that React has morphed into a something is even harder to use than Angular 1.0
I'm not at all sure this will be good for the Fediverse. I already see Meta "improving" upon ActivityPub in incompatible ways, urging people to just use their app (potential quote: "you can see all of the Fediverse anyways") and in the long run (when their own "instance" is big enough) will pull the plug again and be on its own.
If Meta has the gall to rug-pull the entire Fediverse, things will just return to the same status quo they are today. Multiple content silos with thousands of freely-federating alternative platforms. As a Mastodon user I can't say I'm very scared of it, such a decision would hurt Meta more than it helps them.
Meta can ActivityPub themselves all day long, as far as I'm concerned. If I were a server operator, I wouldn't let them anywhere NEAR my users though, so no federation with them.
> If Meta has the gall to rug-pull the entire Fediverse, things will just return to the same status quo they are today.
This is very optimistic. EEE in the past didn't turn out that way. I can imagine the Fediverse being an empty husk with no (significant) life left, but that's just my fears.
The EEE attempts on a major open platform haven't even reached step 3, arguably. ActiveX, XServe, Flash and Silverlight all failed spectacularly at their goal of co-opting and extinguishing the concept of the internet. Considering how Meta has no meaningful leverage over the Fediverse community, I think your fears are unwarranted. Best case scenario, Meta plays by the rules and federates well-regulated content into everyone's feeds like Twitter with less extremism. Worst-case scenario, Meta goes crazy and takes all the normies with them to their closed Threads landscape, returning things to how they are now (dense with nerds and misfits). I don't think Meta enthusiasts or current Fediverse denizens would care either way.
I deleted my account this morning, with a backup natch - nice thing about Mastodon, I can start up exactly where I left off, including whatever followers come over to the non-Meta side of the schism.
People act like the schism Fedi being small is a bad thing, I don't think we're supposed to interact with the entire planet as individuals. We apes do not have the capacity to handle it.
This is called Dunbar's Number.
I also remember the rumours stating that the Federation part was exclusively targeting large Mastodon servers, and also mostly unidirectional (from Mastodon to Threads).
I don't think the federation support will be all that great from what I've heard. But who knows, maybe it'll bring the Fediverse to the mainstream.
Meta isn't making any special deals with large servers and basically no large servers have signed the pact. Most of the pact signatories are single user servers or similar, there's a handful of small to medium sized ones, and even those who are defederating Meta will not defederate the servers that do federate with Meta.
That being said, the big question will be how open Threads is to the rest of the fediverse. It likely won't include the global federated feed, so the question will be how much Threads users end up interacting with the average Mastodon user. It might end up being we only see Threads users when they either manually know a user they want to follow, or Meta promotes content from folks like George Takei into Threads and we see trash comments on that.
Looking at the largest 30 or so instances by users most of them seem to have a 'wait and see' approach, which seems much more reasonable to me.
Unidirectional federation sounds like a nightmare on the UX side, so if that's the case I imagine it'd be Threads to Mastodon, enabling you to follow (but not interact) with Threads users.
Define swap. I'm hearing instances which federate with FB will be defederated as well. If instances need to be federated to "swap", it likely won't be easy.
Our splinter network will exist but be a non-factor to those who want "reach".
What do you mean by this? If you're a Mastodon user, you'd just see Threads users on your feed, and be able to reply/boost/etc their posts normally.
[0] https://daringfireball.net/2023/06/more_on_preemptively_bloc...
https://about.scicomm.xyz/doku.php?id=blog:2023:0625_meta_on...
Like how GTalk use XMPP, the port 5222 opens, but with tons of customizations and extensions that 3rd-party program can only use the basics?
Sign me up. Or rather, sign up everyone I know besides me :)
Not only might they mod at will in the way reddit mods do, Mastodon admins take it several steps further by bothering other instance mods about their moderation. And then yet another step: whom they federate with. They'll form little secret discord channels where they gather and form cancellation pacts on entire instances, based on a whim.
Freedom of association is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have and democratic, free market societies can only flourish as long as we all agree to leave one another alone. You or I may not fully agree on the utility of say gay marriage or vaccines or religion or any number of cultural differences, but neither of us should be compelled to seriously entertain or fundamentally alter our way of being and thinking to please the other. This is how the old internet worked, the only reason we feel that it's impossible now is because we've been made to believe in totalizing systems of power that flatten and threaten to erase (by legal mandate or otherwise) different subcultures.