https://youtu.be/GefwcsrChHk

hmm that sounds really interesting! if you end up remembering it and also remember to respond i’d love to know lol. yeah i hope if something good enough comes along two platforms will implement and then others will just follow suit.

that’s all very fair, i guess i was just hoping federation was at least on a long term roadmap

yeah, i agree that i don’t think federation of something like this would be through ActivityPub (matrix has its own). i guess it just feels unfortunate that if users want to access communities across multiple instances, users will have to have separate logins and identities for each one.

i looked into revolt and pretty concerned with these two stances of the project

We don’t think federation is beneficial to Revolt

ref

We have a variety of monetisation ideas lined up internally, with these, it is not my intention for us to paywall features and I find it unlikely we would ever do that considering it would contradict what we’re trying to achieve.

ref

like, to me it seems they want to get communities invested and then later monetize in ways those communities don’t yet know about?? idk that sounds extremely sus. especially when competing instances will fight against network effects with no federation.

while I agree they are probably doing this and we should have better data privacy/ownership, the scope of the data they can pull from the fediverse is substantially less than what they get from their platform.

when you’re on Facebook, they control and track everything. which posts you see, which you don’t, and in what order, how long you looked at a given post, whether or not you scrolled through comments, every movement of your mouse, everything you typed and deleted in that text box, where on the screen you touched while you dragged to scroll, what text you highlighted, absolutely everything.

the only data they can probably pull from the fediverse is posts, comments, and like/dislike. maybe which posts you clicked into if that’s public and I’m pretty sure they can’t get which posts were shown to you without owning the instance you’re on.

what if it needed just one more second to complete?

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

i have mentioned this is some other comments, but if threads ends up hosting/owning many of the popular communities within the fediverse (which they certainly will try to do), the independent instances can’t do much if threads ever decides to leave the fediverse.

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

that’s very fair, but i think they are going for control here.

their entire business model is to monetize via selling data and ads. so trivially they need users to give them data and see ads. to maximize this, they need to maximize the number of people using the app and the time each person spends using the app. both of these require control. easiest way is to lock in users via their network/communities being there while manipulating content to get people to spend more time.

open protocols are in direct opposition to this type of control. for instance, the tech giants see how they can’t control email and hate it. they struggle to monetize it via their business model because ads and manipulation result in a terrible user experience. users will just leave and go to another provider (in this example, they obviously lose the domain unless they own and use a custom one). google killed the xmpp protocol with embrace, extend, extinguish for the same reason. as an open protocol gets going, it only gets harder for the tech giants to stop.

so, if they want to stay in control, they need to squash a federated platform as early as possible, the most proven strategy being embrace/extend/extinguish. so, given history, this is what the tech giants have planned for the fediverse.

If we want any chance of the fediverse to extend to every social media user I’m of the belief we should federate.

that’s fair, but i think this is an unreasonable goal at the moment. right now, i think the fediverse needs to focus on surviving in the face of being infiltrated by the social media incumbents. they have already wrung their own social medias for as much money and data as possible at the expense of their users. they may say or pretend to be ok just being a player in the fediverse for now, but make no mistake they will certainly be positioning themselves to try to take it over for their own benefit (and yet again at our expense). if major communities are hosted by the incumbents, you can bet they will eventually turn to manipulating them for money, including cutting them off of the fediverse if that will benefit them (see xmpp).

to counteract this, i think we need to focus on sustainability, including cultivating a diverse set of communities across a diverse set of instances, among other things. anything owned by the incumbents will eventually be tainted, so do we really want to wait until that happens? we know it’s going to happen, so why wait until things get bad? they will be posturing to monopolize and monetize. by the time they take actions that would cause other instances to defederate, they will have already ensured that it is too late for that to matter. they are smart, don’t underestimate their drive for control and money.

imo you are giving benefit of the doubt to a company that clearly doesn’t deserve it

yeah, i think it’s totally fine that most people don’t have being “open” as a priority. and to me, those people will continue to ride the waves of social media enshittification until they realize what’s going on and look for something different (much like many of us here have done).

i think we have a chance to have a community break away from that. but giving the big players the ability to rally the masses and own most of the communities and content we end up interacting with is how we set ourselves up to be extinguished. maybe we will be able to avoid this by making sure we are interacting with many diverse instances, but only time can tell. the one thing we can be sure of is that meta and any others will be attempting to monopolize the platform.

At the end of the day though, some servers will block threads and some wont but with enough options everyone can join a server that fits their needs and that really is what the fediverse is about

yeah true, this part will be very interesting. i am just glad to be a part of a community with a common goal of being open and having discussions like this about what that means. i think that common ideal might actually have the potential to keep it together long term. and i think that’s worth fighting for.

i think the major reason social networks always seem to fail so far is that they are completely controlled by a company and can’t escape enshittification

this new meta product will undoubtedly go through the process of enshittification, just like all the others have, but we can sit back and continue to grow organically. those that care or get fed up will join, and that’s great.

i don’t think we need to be the next reddit, just a place that we all enjoy being. a place that is not driven by profit, unlike reddit, will surely be a fundamentally different place. striving to be reddit is doomed to fail.

i personally would be fine without meta’s content if it means we are more likely to survive.

i said this in a reply, but think it’s important enough so I’ll put it on its own too.

to me, this is very reminiscent of the paradox of tolerance. just because we want an open platform doesn’t mean we need to, or should, support those who do not have that same thing in mind. and allowing it is at the risk of allowing them to operate unencumbered and most likely take advantage of open stance.

That said, I agree with @Dsaf@midwest.social that blocking by default would be against the open platform that we claim we want.

to me, this is very reminiscent of the paradox of tolerance. just because we want an open platform doesn’t mean we need to, or should, support those who do not have that same thing in mind.