A lot of people dislike it for the privacy nightmare that it is and feel the threat of an EEE attack. This will also probably not be the last time that a big corporation will insert itself in the Fediverse.

However, people also say that it will help get ActivityPub and the Fediverse go more mainstream and say that corporations don't have that much influence on the Fediverse since people are in control of their own servers.

What a lot of posts have in common is that they want some kind of action to be taken, whether it'd be mass defederating from Threads, or accept them in some way that does not harm the Fediverse as much.

What actions can we take to deal with Threads?

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

[–] joe 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Everyone on the fediverse knows about EEE at this point; it's mentioned in every other post haha

The dev behind Mastodon doesn't seem concerned. Why are you?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i don't like meta and everything they seem to touch with their greedy little fingers turns into a hollow husk of what it once was, if you want an example look at whatsapp

i like the fediverse and i think it has potential, i just don't want to see it ruined slowly but surely

[–] guy 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

WhatsApp is owned and fully controlled by Meta. The Fediverse is federated and that's the beauty of it. They can't control it

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you are right but they can dictate standards because of their massive user base, i mean they have had 10 million sign ups in 7 hours. that is more than the entirety of mastodon.

perhaps a more suitable example would be google's adblock hostile attitude and how they can only do that because of their massive user base.

meta only cares about profit and i don't think any profit driven entity entering fediverse is a good thing.

[–] guy 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, but if they do try to dictate standards, then react, defederate, that's all I'm saying. I just don't think we need to be proactive here, our tools to react are fast acting and simple.

If they do go for the dreaded Embrace, Extend, Extinguish method, then let's ride the benefits of "Embrace" and lose them when they move on to the next steps.

[–] ttmrichter 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Look up the history of the dread Triple-E and count the number of people who said exactly what you just said here shortly before they got consigned to oblivion by it.

[–] guy 2 points 1 year ago

And I'm sure there are many cases where an attempted EEE failed, but that doesn't get documented in the history, because you only notice it when it is effective.

Meta isn't even entering the Lemmy space yet, they're entering the Mastodon space. They can hardly extend and extinguish Lemmy when they are just barely feature compatible to begin with. Yes it's all Fediverse, but it's pretty different.

The audience, use cases and purposes are different between Lemmy and Threads. At least for now. Consider defederating if that changes

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Mastodon Dev says it's not a concern because of brand recognition.

That's not a defense mechanism lol.

[–] joe -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not an accurate summary.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Please could you provide a better summary then? I must have missed the point, because I'm genuinely not understanding how the fediverse is EEE-resistant.

[–] Marxine 5 points 1 year ago

Lots of devs are foolish/naive, Eugen is just one of many to fit this bill.

[–] ttmrichter 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Being smart at coding doesn't automatically make you smart at anything except, possibly, coding^1^. Eugen is young and is being more than just a little naive here. He hasn't seen well-intentioned people get played for suckers enough times to make the pattern match on "bad actors do bad things, no matter what their pretty words".

^1^ Why "possibly" here? Because "coding" is a far larger field than people understand—including coders.