There’s been a lot of speculation around what Threads will be and what it means for Mastodon. We’ve put together some of the most common questions and our responses based on what was launched today.
You underestimate Meta’s resources or influence. They have the potential to influence user bases, use competitive pressure (features!) to draw people to their own instance or manipulate the platform (extend ActivityPub) to their advantage.
How many developers does the Fediverse “have”? A few part timers or Patreon financed developers which to tackle servers, apps, etc. Compare that with Meta’s (roughly and conservatively estimated) 10000 developers. There is no comparison. The Fediverse can’t compete.
Also, assuming the failing of Threads and using it as an excuse is reckless or at least irresponsible. The dangers we are facing right now are too big to be easily brushed of with a “will fail, meh”.
I think it is a mistake to underestimate Meta’s resolve here. They present a concrete danger to the wider Fediverse and we need to take it seriously.
It’s not only the defederation. It’s the message that it sends. Defederating “Threads” says: “We don’t see any value in this service. People who think like us shouldn’t join it.”
Don’t underestimate the power of influence we techies (or first movers) have. Regular people look to us for guidance on which service to choose from the wide variety out there.
If we say, “This doesn’t hold any value.” less people will choose it. The effect may be small, but it is there, and it is accumulative.
I guess that makes us both guilty of underestimating Meta’s resources and influence.
Even in an unlikely event that people would notice our existence, should we choose to preemptively defederate Meta, it is much more likely for Meta to push the narrative that ‘they’ were the ones who deferated us. No one’s gonna hear about our values and what we stand for, even if they did, why would they believe us over the platform which allegedly has the power to influence elections?
edit: They don’t even need to make stuff up, they can just say they were unable to guarantee a safe and well moderated space as a company if they were to stay federated.
That’s too optimistic, even for me. Peoples’ perception will decide the fate of the technology. You might be able to influence a couple of friends and family but the general public is much much larger.
Just take a look at what happened to cryptocurrency. It was an amazing and novel idea, decentrilizing money, cutting the banks, and the goverment from day to day transactions. It had it flaws but nothing that couldn’t be fixed with a few iterations. Nowadays ordinary people won’t touch it because it’s either for ‘illegal activities’, ‘scams’, or ‘gambling’.
While I might only be able to influence a few people, the act of defederating Meta will have the power to influence a lot of people to influence a lot of other people.
Why would anyone want to recommend an App which can’t even interact with the most promising communication network in recent years?
Federating with Meta will send the opposite message: “Yes, we endorse them. You can choose either us or them. Have fun.”
I do not endorse them and I don’t want anybody I know of to think I do.
You underestimate Meta’s resources or influence. They have the potential to influence user bases, use competitive pressure (features!) to draw people to their own instance or manipulate the platform (extend ActivityPub) to their advantage.
How many developers does the Fediverse “have”? A few part timers or Patreon financed developers which to tackle servers, apps, etc. Compare that with Meta’s (roughly and conservatively estimated) 10000 developers. There is no comparison. The Fediverse can’t compete.
Also, assuming the failing of Threads and using it as an excuse is reckless or at least irresponsible. The dangers we are facing right now are too big to be easily brushed of with a “will fail, meh”.
I think it is a mistake to underestimate Meta’s resolve here. They present a concrete danger to the wider Fediverse and we need to take it seriously.
You are %100 correct, but I don’t understand how defederating Meta will change any of the things you pointed out?
It’s not only the defederation. It’s the message that it sends. Defederating “Threads” says: “We don’t see any value in this service. People who think like us shouldn’t join it.”
Don’t underestimate the power of influence we techies (or first movers) have. Regular people look to us for guidance on which service to choose from the wide variety out there.
If we say, “This doesn’t hold any value.” less people will choose it. The effect may be small, but it is there, and it is accumulative.
I guess that makes us both guilty of underestimating Meta’s resources and influence.
Even in an unlikely event that people would notice our existence, should we choose to preemptively defederate Meta, it is much more likely for Meta to push the narrative that ‘they’ were the ones who deferated us. No one’s gonna hear about our values and what we stand for, even if they did, why would they believe us over the platform which allegedly has the power to influence elections?
edit: They don’t even need to make stuff up, they can just say they were unable to guarantee a safe and well moderated space as a company if they were to stay federated.
While you’re right, they have massive influence, but we have the moral high ground.
The people we are close to, our friends, relatives, etc. will believe in us. That’s all we need, because this is the most sustainable growth there is.
We don’t need to spew marketing propaganda. We just need to stand our ground and not endorse companies which will operate opposite of our values.
That’s too optimistic, even for me. Peoples’ perception will decide the fate of the technology. You might be able to influence a couple of friends and family but the general public is much much larger.
Just take a look at what happened to cryptocurrency. It was an amazing and novel idea, decentrilizing money, cutting the banks, and the goverment from day to day transactions. It had it flaws but nothing that couldn’t be fixed with a few iterations. Nowadays ordinary people won’t touch it because it’s either for ‘illegal activities’, ‘scams’, or ‘gambling’.
While I might only be able to influence a few people, the act of defederating Meta will have the power to influence a lot of people to influence a lot of other people.
Why would anyone want to recommend an App which can’t even interact with the most promising communication network in recent years?
Federating with Meta will send the opposite message: “Yes, we endorse them. You can choose either us or them. Have fun.”
I do not endorse them and I don’t want anybody I know of to think I do.