Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

mastodon.moule.world

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#31

Post by MBCook »

jacooper wrote: post #27
MBCook wrote: post #22

We’re open to everyone! No not like that! A person going by Bloonface ( https://mastodon.social/@Bloonface/110605013435138542# .) put it perfectly. People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong. Posting too much. Using hashtags. Not using hashtags. Not adding alt descriptions. Not using content warnings. Using content warnin…

They are trying to protect the fediverse from Facebook Embrace, extend, extinguish them.

Why? FB doesn’t need to. They’re what, tens of thousands of times bigger?

And there is nothing stopping servers from defederating at the drop of a hat. We already know that, it happens constantly for some reason.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#32

Post by SamWhited »

shadowgovt wrote: post #19
treyd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we learned from this before with their support for XMPP in Messenger (which no longer exists)? And plenty of other examples for for-profit corporations initially embracing open standards/protocols that might threaten their moat?

Do we expect it will go better if they are blocked? Instead of the risk of embrace, extend, extinguish, Fediverse just ends up being "the thing like Facebook's thing, but harder to use?"

That's what it is now, and that's fine (well, the "harder to use" isn't fine and lots of people are working on that, but it's okay that it's not ultra-popular). The fediverse (for the most part) isn't looking for rapid growth, there are no shareholders to appease, we just want to exist and not have to do free moderation for Facebook when they fail to moderate the content from their users, as they have always failed to do. We block small servers who are bad actors all the time, and Facebook has always been a bad actor when it was a walled garden and they have done nothing to show that they won't continue to do the same once they support activitypub.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#33

Post by hughesjj »

juped wrote: post #25
egypturnash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has already embraced, extended, and extinguished RSS. The expectation is that they will do the same with ActivityPub if given a chance. They are also well-known for tracking users across the entire internet and maintaining "shadow profiles" of people who don't even use their services. Anyone with privacy concerns[1] would not want them on the same network as themselves. Their moderation is shit, they are hap…

no they haven't, what the hell are you talking about

Google killing reader did more to cause the demise of rss than fb ever did

That said there's totally plugins for rss in Firefox and the likes but no one uses them because why would anyone

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#34

Post by hughesjj »

LexiMax wrote: post #21
cyanydeez wrote: post #3

Yeah, f your tech is meant to "federate" the internet, being a block on the larger old guard isn't the way to go, unless your tech really ain't much.

If the end state of the fediverse is the same incumbent social networks running the federated social media sphere just like they run their walled gardens, what would've been the point of the entire exercise? Meta already has their social networks. The fediverse doesn't need them, and I don't see why they "need" the fediverse either - unless their plan is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

So it'll just be a new set of walled gardens with no history we can evaluate? How is that better?

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#35

Post by juped »

hughesjj wrote: post #33
juped wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no they haven't, what the hell are you talking about

Google killing reader did more to cause the demise of rss than fb ever did That said there's totally plugins for rss in Firefox and the likes but no one uses them because why would anyone

Yeah, Google killing Reader was the big driver.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#36

Post by LexiMax »

MBCook wrote: post #22

We’re open to everyone! No not like that! A person going by Bloonface ( https://mastodon.social/@Bloonface/110605013435138542# .) put it perfectly. People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong. Posting too much. Using hashtags. Not using hashtags. Not adding alt descriptions. Not using content warnings. Using content warnin…

> People complain more people should dump centralization and move to Mastodon, but every time they try they get shouted at for doing it wrong.

It seems 100% reasonable to suspect the motives of a company with two massive walled-garden social networks under their belt. The fediverse doesn't need them, and there's no obvious upside of federation for them.

Besides, on my list of issues with Facebook and Instagram, "not being accessible from the wider internet" isn't even on my top 10. If I wanted to read posts from those networks, I know where to find them.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#37

Post by nobody9999 »

rvz wrote: post #12

Fediverse: We want adoption in the Fediverse. Meta: Sure. Let's get 2B into the Fediverse with Instagram Threads. Fediverse: No! Not that sort of adoption! Block Meta from the Fediverse now! As expected and predicted in [0]: 'Instagram's success on ActivityPub is also Mastodon's nightmare and it tends to more centralization.' Looks like Threads is going to be the biggest Mastodon-compatible network on the Fediverse a…

>...with the smaller ones making themselves irrelevant if they do.

Irrelevant to who and/or what?

I'd expect that most instances aren't interested in the stuff going on over on Meta's services, most likely because they're on the fediverse to get away from them.

What's more, not every site wants to monetize their users or maximize engagement. Rather, they aim to be a community.

If your[0] goal is to "increase your reach" to improve your economic prospects, then small instances will likely be irrelevant -- to you.

If that's your goal, I don't want you on my AP instance anyway. There's way too much of that elsewhere.

[0] That's a general "you," not rvz specifically.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#38

Post by Nextgrid »

NegativeK wrote: post #16
cpill wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of course it is.

There's no reason federated social media has to adopt the exponential growth or die mentality. Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And they can continue on just fine.

> Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't.

And this is exactly why the current idea of "fediverse" was not only dead on arrival but is just as dead 7 years down the (counting from Mastodon's release date which is the most popular implementation).

People just want to communicate, they don't know nor care about the technical details. They know that if they ask the person they just met at the bar for their Instagram they will find them on Instagram. Same deal for Twitter, Snapchat & TikTok.

For the fediverse however, the water gets murkier and the outcome isn't guaranteed because of the above (and many other technical details). (the only guaranteed outcome is that nobody is going to embarrass themselves mentioning "Mastodon" outside of a tech conference)

If you need other reasons why I consider Mastodon and the current implementation of "fediverse" DOA, see my previous posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#39

Post by LexiMax »

hughesjj wrote: post #34
LexiMax wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the end state of the fediverse is the same incumbent social networks running the federated social media sphere just like they run their walled gardens, what would've been the point of the entire exercise? Meta already has their social networks. The fediverse doesn't need them, and I don't see why they "need" the fediverse either - unless their plan is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

So it'll just be a new set of walled gardens with no history we can evaluate? How is that better?

You and I must be working with different definitions of "Walled Garden."

I can connect to multiple places on the fediverse with a single app. The app also works pretty consistently between servers and doesn't go out of its way to drive engagement with dark patterns or serve me ads.

Re: FediBlock Meta's new Threads domain

#40

Post by LexiMax »

Nextgrid wrote: post #38
NegativeK wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason federated social media has to adopt the exponential growth or die mentality. Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And they can continue on just fine.

> Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And this is exactly why the current idea of "fediverse" was not only dead on arrival but is just as dead 7 years down the (counting from Mastodon's release date which is the most popular implementation). People just want to communicate, they don't know nor care about the technical details. They know that if they ask the person they just met at the bar…

Yikes. I was half expecting you to end that last sentence with a contemptuous "NERRRRRRRRRDS!!!"
Post reply on HN