• Kogasa@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “natural selection” in this context is unregulated capitalism and ends in Meta owning you. No, don’t “let it.” Maintain boundaries between the free and open internet and that governed by corporate interests.

    • MishMash@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But that’s the risk taken when you create a protocol (ActivityPub) that anyone can tap into. You can’t create something that is open to everyone and then pitch a fit when entity you don’t like or agree decides to take advantage of it. Regardless of how big Threads get, it can’t supecede the ActivityPub protocol. If they decided to defederate down the road in attempts to extinguish the Fediverse, it won’t work, those users will still remain and Threads will go on it’s merry way. Meta can’t kill a W3C protocol.

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can actually pitch a fit when the entity poses a genuine existential crisis. What do you think Meta will do once they’re here? Give direct access to Facebook users. This will drown out the user base AND pull users away when certain features are introduced by them that just happen to not work well outside Threads. It is an EEE strategy in your face and you want to wait and see? Come on.

        I don’t think defederating from any Instance which plays ball with Threads for that reason only is a good idea. I do think Instance owners should see the danger Threads poses and act accordingly.

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is completely inevitable that Meta will add Threads-exclusive functionality that is not compatible with ActivityPub, funnelling users into their own walled garden.