I used to think that there would be 1, main ‘Fediverse’ with all of the ‘big instances’ connected to each other. The recent Threads debacle has shown me otherwise.
The point of the Fediverse is that there is no one single entity, or group of entities, dominating it all.
Right now it feels like whatever the big instances do, we kind of have to go along with to be a part of anything. As the Fediverse grows, there will be more options to suit different types of users.
I think it’s fine if big instances federate with Threads and it’s fine if they don’t. People can just join instances that align with what they want. It’s not like defederating means being cut out of the Fediverse, that’s not possible.
Great design. I’m eager to see how it plays out.
This is what Zuck wants to change with Threads.
It’s not. He wants to create a social media that exploits its users without being accused of monopolistic behaviour.
All the tasty data collection and surveillance with none of the calories.
What kind of “tasty data collection and surveillance” will Meta have access to that they didn’t before federating?
they will have an excuse to do it openly instead of trying to do it secretly and inevitably getting caught
That doesn’t answer my question.
But the fact they can just defederate makes it much harder.
How does defederating make it harder?