Those of you caught up debating the technical minutiae of federating with Threads are missing the forest for the trees.
This is about one thing: Affording social capital to/normalising/legitimising Meta/Facebook/surveillance capitalism (and thereby delegitimising those who oppose them).
Hey, if the author of Mastodon thinks Meta/Facebook/Instagram/surveillance capitalism is socially acceptable there must be something wrong with you if you don’t.
So thanks for that, Eugen.
(Yes, I’m livid.)
I understand everyone's well founded anti-Meta and surveillance capitalism concerns. But low-key there is merit to being able to connect with my more normy people who just don't have it in them to dive into the fedi. I think interoperability between networks is generally a virtue. And if we're doing our thing right over here, people will migrate.
I also don't feel any of this particularly strongly and am open to being told all the reasons why I'm wrong.
@natebowling The assumption is Threads works the way Mastodon, etc., do. It doesn’t. It works the way Instagram/Facebook do. With algorithmic timelines, where a trillion-dollar corporation decides who sees what. A thousand people might follow you from Threads but, when you post, only three see your post.
And that’s before we get to how the current large instances can be captured via moderation, etc., and how deeming them socially acceptable legitimises their whole toxic business.
Yeah, Zuck isn't really a very good message intermediary. You pass on the messages you want him to show to your friends and he randomly deletes half of them to replace them with adverts and posts from companies and influencers.
Aral Balkan
Nate Bowling (نيت بولينج)
BILL Stankiewicz
Adam Dalliance