You don't wait and see how it goes with these sorts of things. They will destroy the community before you can take action and it'll be too late. They will do their best to destroy the fediverse and privatize it. They can't buy it like they usually do with competition, so they'll ooze their way in, contribute bullshit to the project, create new proprietary functionality that only works on their instance, convince everyone all the other instances are broken, and walk away with all the users. You don't invite vampires into your house.

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

Do you realize that fediverse is not one single project? For example Lemmy and Mastodon has different implementation and developers. The only thing that connecting them is ActivityPub, which is owned by W3C, not the community. So basically Meta created their own implementation for Threads (so it's already propertiary), and theoretically already able to pressure W3C to change the ActivityPub without even joining fediverse

[+] eu8 -9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How will they destroy it if they are literally only making it larger and more useable. The average normie today has no reason to create a mastadon account, because almost no one uses it. But if they can use a major social media platform, and use a federated free service like mastadon, then that makes mastadon much more valuable to them.

The fact that a social media service is objectively good doesn't mean anyone is going to use it. Having backing from the biggest social media company in the world, might actually get people to use it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I started swaying towards defederating after reading this article, maybe you'd like to take a look and see what you think? It argues much better than I ever could.

[–] jerdle_lemmy 2 points 1 year ago

This is the classic size vs purity argument. Would it be better to have a large fediverse with corporate input or a small one without?