It’s worth noting that this still splits Mastodon pretty much in half.
Not half, much less than that is blocking Meta. It seems the split is ideological, which means there will likely never be a fediverse where we’re all together, alongside Threads. I speak of experience, I went straight to AUTHORIZED FETCH and whitelist on my masto as soon as I saw how many just didn’t care. But I don’t care about Zuckerbots dropping out of my field of view and they’re probably happy they don’t have to deal with someone as paranoid as me; believing that Meta would exploit us given the chance. So, win win?
As always in left-leaning spaces, the best way to disarm any threat of reform is to wait for whatever purity test over a random issue to trigger a schism, sit back and watch. It’s not even the first time it happens to Mastodon specifically.
In this case, a potential competitor that already has a reputation for being overcomplicated and having bad UX now needs an extra FAQ item called “can I interact with Threads from Mastodon?” and the answer is “it depends”.
It’s terrible, self-destructive and worse than either a yes or no call. Zuck boned Masto by federating a handful of employee accounts only AND he’s still going to get the plausible deniability in front of regulators from federating with whatever’s left. I’d be impressed if I thought Meta did it on purpose instead of it being entirely self-inflicted.
Hey can you help me reword the commenter above you about what they meant? I had a hard time fully understanding it, maybe I’m not updated enough about Meta to understand what exactly Zuck wants to have plausible-deniability about?
It’s not just ideological. Many people and instances on the fediverse have minorities using them. These minorities rely on it to share and discuss in safe spaces. The federation of threads is a threat to these safe space.
Not half, much less than that is blocking Meta. It seems the split is ideological, which means there will likely never be a fediverse where we’re all together, alongside Threads. I speak of experience, I went straight to AUTHORIZED FETCH and whitelist on my masto as soon as I saw how many just didn’t care. But I don’t care about Zuckerbots dropping out of my field of view and they’re probably happy they don’t have to deal with someone as paranoid as me; believing that Meta would exploit us given the chance. So, win win?
Oh, hard disagree on the last part, at least.
As always in left-leaning spaces, the best way to disarm any threat of reform is to wait for whatever purity test over a random issue to trigger a schism, sit back and watch. It’s not even the first time it happens to Mastodon specifically.
In this case, a potential competitor that already has a reputation for being overcomplicated and having bad UX now needs an extra FAQ item called “can I interact with Threads from Mastodon?” and the answer is “it depends”.
It’s terrible, self-destructive and worse than either a yes or no call. Zuck boned Masto by federating a handful of employee accounts only AND he’s still going to get the plausible deniability in front of regulators from federating with whatever’s left. I’d be impressed if I thought Meta did it on purpose instead of it being entirely self-inflicted.
Thanks for putting this in words, I had been struggling thinking about what was bothering me about this.
Hey can you help me reword the commenter above you about what they meant? I had a hard time fully understanding it, maybe I’m not updated enough about Meta to understand what exactly Zuck wants to have plausible-deniability about?
It’s not just ideological. Many people and instances on the fediverse have minorities using them. These minorities rely on it to share and discuss in safe spaces. The federation of threads is a threat to these safe space.