good argument but no thanks.i joined lemmy for avoid at alls cost main place controled by corpo. yhea sure at first they are doing nothing. but later?

I personaly want to block Meta for good, don't want bots and ads posting things, don't want paid shills promoting propagonda, and never want my data collected and sold. mega corporates enriching themselves while controlling, spying, interferring and shaping our society without permissions.

On the topic of not needing to be federated to scrape data: yes, posts are public, but (at the moment…) a part of privacy comes from simply not being examined closely. Meta announcing their introduction into the Fediverse immediately shines a light on it in its entirety in a way that would dwarf disgruntled Redditors signing up.

Not allowing them to make that claim by denying them outright would be preferable, if the decision is to not federate.

There's a lot of more convincing arguments than I could make about this matter made by other users in this thread so I'll just say that I don't want to be anywhere near anything even vaguely related to meta. It is a cancer and should be denied and boycotted at every opportunity.

If this instance doesn't defederate I will just switch to one that will. Neutrality towards them might as well be complicity because they will abuse it.

Something to consider: I’m not even sure Threads will actually implement ActivityPub.

I think it’s been an amazing talking point for them this week, to differentiate themselves from Twitter for shareholders in a way that sounds like it can justify their growth ambitions beyond Twitter’s. Every other differentiator (our moderation will be better, our community will be friendlier, our UX will be better…) is subjective. A “we’ll do just like X but better” strategy is not a very compelling long-term growth strategy, particularly when Twitter is the model, and Twitter tried so hard and failed so hard to exit for many years before Musk even expressed interest.

But if your killer growth feature is that you mean to tap into that “something-verse” that shareholders have a weak understanding of (surely if it ends in “-verse”, it’s gotta be massive! Particularly if the press has been describing it with dramatic words as the only credible alternative to Twitter so far), then it does sound like it could grow further than Twitter could have.

The reason I’m not buying it, is that the integration between a massive social media service like Threads and the small ActivityPub servers of various versions everywhere would probably be a massive technical and human headache, that Meta can’t completely control. And that is not in their wheelhouse. But something that is in their wheelhouse more than in Twitter’s, is to successfully monetize various forms of closed social media. But the only way that vision can be sufficient as a financial strategy, is if they first prove that they can in fact pull that off. And I actually think they totally can pull it off.

So with that, I don’t think it’s impossible that once Meta has grown Threads sufficiently, and then that they run successful ads on it, that they might announce that they’re dropping the ActivityPub plan altogether before it’s even released. Their stock might take a dip that day, but I could imagine that the hope is that by then they will have proven that their service doesn’t need it after all, in which case it should be a small dip. And before that, the stock will have increased a lot based on the fediverse promise.

I’m not saying that Meta is not going to actively invest in it and try it; in fact, they legally have to, now that they announced it, since it’s a public company, or else it would be fraud. But my guess is they might be counting on other upsides to work out well enough that they don’t need to deliver it in the end after all.

We’ll see…

Defederating from Threads in a preemptive fashion is nothing more than reactionary nonsense based on bad history. It literally makes no sense. Who the fuck cares what Meta does? All of the "consequences" I've read so far come across like bad fanfic at best. The analogies to Microsoft are false equivalencies.

I'll make it simple: I'll leave if lemmy.world defederates things preemptively. People need to understand that this idea has been around forever and has worked forever. Looking a gift horse like Threads choosing to join up (if it actually does federate - I highly doubt it) in the mouth is absolutely insane.

Why are the doomers not talking about how best to steal users from Threads instead of just assuming this entire thing collapses the second a company with capital joins? How can this be considered a sustainable (again, looong-ago proven) system if a single company can pop in and ruin it?

Can someone explain to me why/how a Lemmy instance would federate with Threads anyway? I get it with Mastodon - they are both Twitter like apps, it makes sense. You could theoretically follow a Threads account and just have their posts appear in your Mastodon feed. I don't quite understand how that would even work here.

Finally a sane, and non impulsive post about this.

I know my input doesn't help the conversation but I just don't see how Threads could harm the fediverse through Triple-E. The ActivityPub protocol is already set in stone, the fediverse already has a few million users collectively, the software is independently developed and established. You can argue that they can update the protocol and do it that way but that falls flat as it would require consumers.

Threads already is up to 100 million users. The only thing they gain is more content. But that probably wouldn't matter since engagement over there is already high. They can't gain credentials because the protocol doesn't allow it and any content scraping they can do now without an account.

Now, keep in mind I understand what Meta is and what it does/has done. But, I just don't see how the company could directly harm the rest of the fediverse, especially when removing them is as easy as defederating. The only thing I could see as a potential problem is Spam/Content ads. But every social network has those and is handled through detection and moderation.

I think the interesting part is that the Threads display layout is already built with federated content in mind. They will most likely go through with this even if it's not with the current fediverse. They might just create their own if they can't connect with the current one which sort of defeats the purpose of connected federated social networks. Or maybe yet, adopt AT Protocol and just connect with Dorsey's BlueSky.

Either way, I don't have much of a dog in this fight. But I do like the calmer and more level headed approach some of the major instances are taking.

Thank you for a well reasoned post. I'm not a fan of the Zuck, but understand the implications a lot better thanks to what you wrote. Whatever is decided, I stand with you.

I am new to Lemmy and Fediverse in general. Hypothetically, if Threads and a Lemmy instance is federated, how will users from either environment see the content, since the posts operate on different principles?

I understand Mastodon instances and Threads can potentially blend content. However, Lemmy operates in parent post with hierarchical comments which is different than Mastodon.

Are there Mastodon and Lemmy instances blending content? Or perhaps this impacts Kbin more since it supports both post publication types.

Thanks. Any clarification helps.