Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan but it seems like the fediverse could theoretically exist with like 5 users whereas a commercial company needs users for revenue. It feels like we are using the masters tools to try to destroy the masters house

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 52 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I think the biggest deal about Fediverse is it gives users control instead of companies. Most of social networks are controlled by big tech companies, the fact Fediverse can't be controlled by companies but users makes me feel commited to it. Fediverse could be as good as we want.

[–] Pap3r 6 points 2 years ago (6 children)

I think I understand your comment, so my question is why are so many people up in arms about Threads taking over or destroying the Fediverse?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago (3 children)

If meta makes special features threads only and once they have a corner on the market start defederating, it could suck other already decently popular services dry (mastodon) since they either move to threads or lose any connections they had on threads. In the end, a cool decentralized thing becomes just another corpo social network.

[–] Pap3r 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Sorry I'm fairly new to all this, does defederating mean you break connections to the larger fediverse?

Like I make a server that has 5 people on it and then defederate the server, those 5 people now can't communicate with the fediverse at large?

[–] ellesper 4 points 2 years ago

You don’t defederate your whole instance. You defederate from specific instances.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

It’s basically like blocking a whole server, so if threads defederates from mas.to, users on either site can’t talk to eachother

load more comments (2 replies)