cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/12225991
TL;DR: The common view on Meta’s Threads is that it will be either all good or all bad, leading to oversimplified and at the end contra productive propositions like the Fedipact. But in reality, it’s behaviour will most likely change dynamically over time, and therefore, to prevent us getting in a position, in which Threads can actually perform EEE on us, we need to adapt a dynamic strategy as well.
Normally companies like Facebook just buy their competition, and either kill it or control it. They can’t buy activity pub so this is their strategy instead. Their goal is still the same: kill or control. Why on earth would you want to partner with someone who has that attitude towards you?
Its a monopoly, its behaving like a monopoly. But because of network effects, we cannot just ignore it, we have to go in direct combat.
At least if you want the Fediverse (with a diverse instance-landscape) to become big, confrontation with Meta is inevitable.
If you don’t want it to become big, that’s fine, but then we have a different opinion there.
Network effects are already in play even before Facebook adopts federation. I, like many others here have sacrificed the convenience of a Facebook network for a better alternative. The fediverse is growing in spite of it’s disadvantage in terms of network effect. Let Facebook die of enshittification and it’s users will find the alternatives. Rather than “direct combat” with the giant, I prefer to say “the only winning move, is not to play”.
Interesting point. With activitypub, Threads could try to avoid enshittification.
The Problem: Threads, Mastodon and the other Fediverse apps will soon not be the only players in the Fediverse. At least letting die Facebook of enshittification will not work at this point. And additionally, if Threads decides to franchise its own instances, you have tiny thread-instances all over Social Media not even operated by Meta and that seems pretty resistant to enshittification.
