Are we going to block Meta’s Threads.net? I get it if people want to keep things open. However, Meta is a proven bad actor. They claim they didn’t put in ActivityPub because it was too complicated to get it done at launch, and they can’t get EU approval of their service because of the rampant and invasive data they gather. IMHO, they are going to attempt to muscle the fediverse out of the equation.

  • @[email protected]English
    2•1 year ago

    we need a substantial amount of cross-instance participation to justify Facebook not being able to defederate or make breaking changes without angering their user base and jumping ship to a non-threads instance

    yes! this is a great point and i think this will probably be the key to the fediverse surviving. now we just need to hope that naturally happens? not sure what exactly we can do to foster it lol

    • @[email protected]English
      3•1 year ago

      I’m hoping corporations start their own instances (like nytimes makes an instance for its main account and its journalists) and institutions like universities make their own instances as well (there’s so many .edu emails, there should be .edu fedi accounts). This prevents their posts being governed by a big entity like Facebook and prevents a Twitter style enshitification.

      From a normal user standpoint, follow your friends on threads, talk to them about how they don’t need to be on the threads app, and encourage posting/replying between instances with those around you.

      • @[email protected]English
        2•1 year ago

        ah interesting, i like the idea of using instances as a form of verification. in that case, maybe it makes sense for there to be something like private communities so only those in the instance can see it.

        Edit: i am on lemmy, so using communities. but essentially having some content that is private to the instance