The fediverse is now something that you can evangelize about. Its turning into a buzzword …

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Bottom line: is threads a potential entry-point into the fediverse for a lot of people who otherwise would not be aware/ interested? ABSOLUTELY YES.

    Does that benefit offset the catastrophic harm it will do by overwhelming the fediverse with corporate interests, stacking nonprofits with Meta-friendly officers, and exerting leverage on Activity Pub development? NO WAY.

    fediblock.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You realize the second part would also happen if the Fediverse “takes off”, yes? Then naturally companies would come in and trivially take things over as there’s money to be made.

      It’s a natural end state until governments can be made to curb corporate freedom.

      • blue_berry@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think thats unlikely. If the fediverse wants it or not, its growth is now heavily dependent on Meta

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Ah yes of course. Both Meta and Bluesky have far outrun any federated-short-blogging effort of the Fediverse, and as a result companies will rather want to monetize those. But this is also the paradoxical situation of people in here who both want “the Fediverse to succeed” and “keep corporate interests out of the Fediverse”: Either won’t happen.

          Right now it looks more like this’ll remain a hyper-specialized place for specific discussions, Mastodon more so. You can go there for false dichotomies in regards to browser development feedback for example, or for dejected Youtube actual-content-creators getting yelled at for engaging with their community.

          But it seems it’ll stay at that. However, this also keeps any monetary interest away from it, so that’s good. Of course, should this ever change and the Fediverse grows more welcoming and that works and it grows bigger, of course the moment users move in (in numbers), advertisers, astroturfers and all will move in with them. That’s just a given.

          And partially why I hate this “Just block’em!”-approach to Threads: It assumes the stick-your-fingers-into-your-ears-and-ignore-the-issue approach would ever be an actual solution to any problem. And then when you run into an issue you cannot avoid that way, you have fuck all experience doing something actionable about it, as you’ve never tried before.

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Before billion dollar companies move in, we need to see governments, universities, and journalists on the platform.

  • MorallyCoffee@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    I thought Threads was for people who thought Mastodon was too complicated. What’s all this “turn on sharing” mess?

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Threads is for whoever Meta can sell it to, and I think it was pretty far along in its development before they actually committed to ActivityPub support.

  • electricprism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Step 1. Built Internet to get away from TV

    Step 2. Corporate Greed TV moves over and ruins Internet.

    Step 3. Build New Internet to escape Old Internet Ruined by TV bloodsuckers.

    Step 4. Go back to step 2 and replace tech names with next itteration.