• sudneo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      No really relevant for my point, but I assume that preventing them to be effectively part of the fediverse, can reduce the blast radius of their changes, since they will be (more) isolated.

      If they are on the other hand fully part of the fediverse (I.e. nobody defederates them) many people may be incentivised to move to “that instance” because it will realistically have better availability and in the future might have more “features”, which is exactly the kind of extensions to the protocol that other won’t be able to keep up with.

      I personally used to care more in the past, I don’t now that much, but I can definitely see the potential danger.

      • misk@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        The whole argument is that Meta will do whatever they want with their implementation of Activity Pub and lacks any further details. Blast radius of what? How does that affect existing Mastodon instances? Do they lose anything compared to what they have now?

        Threads doesn’t need Mastodon users because it has orders of magnitude more already. Mastodon has unique competitive advantage, for example no ads, that could compel Threads users to switch with little friction. It might turn out that Threads will offer things Mastodon won’t on principle (follower and notification management for huge accounts) which might actually make whole ecosystem more healthy and diverse.

        Really, it’s best to see what’s going to happen. I’m optimistic because I think open alternatives are generally better and will win long term.