This post at the top of the community homepage explains and answers all of my issues.

  1. The idea of the Fediverse is that you can fed with and defed from any instances as an instance moderator, OR just block a particular instance on a personal level. Right?

If yes, then why is Threads fedding up being viewed as such a big issue? I am not saying I like it. I’m just wondering what the actual issue is and what the real threat is that they pose? I read some comments saying that if Threads feds up, then they could pull the numbers and this gain some sort of majority that would lead to a control over the Fediverse… But, isn’t the point of the Fediverse that people can just stay away from an instance if they don’t like it and still interact with the people?

  1. Also, our posts on any instance are public. So even if we defed from a particular instance, wouldn’t our posts still be accessible? I read that Threads can access our information. The publicly available information on the Fediverse is mostly just usernames and the posts we make. That’s available regardless of them wanting it, right?

I’m looking to understand the issue, not spark a fight. Please. Let’s talk it over and not start being asses.

Remember, a different opinion isn’t the end of the world.

  • half_built_pyramids@lemmy.worldEnglish
    62·
    11 months ago

    I don’t have the post at my fingertips, but big tech had taken over fedi-like stuff in the past.

    There was some messaging app that was gaining steam and so Google connected with it. Now Google had the majority of users.

    Some time passed and google was developing the software more because they can afford a team of a dozen programmers. Google introducts something that the original developers don’t like… maybe mandatory telemetry and ads.

    Google thus breaks the open source community into two and the smaller one dies because they can’t connect with the big audience anymore. Your great aunt didn’t give two ducks about fediverse, but she might see a threads ad on her Facebook. Big tech stops support once the open source is dead.

    Some details wrong im sure.

    The tldr is that having a big stake in the social platform means you can steer it, even against the wishes of the owner.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      11 months ago

      The polum.net link is misleading. The author renegs on his own sensationalist premise within the first paragraph or two. No Google did not take over or destroy XMPP. The XMPP group allowed Google outsized influence. Bending over backwards trying to procure the audience they had rather than focusing on their core product. Which didn’t kill XMPP. But it certainly didn’t help it in the long run.

      Activity pub, Mastodon, and Lemmy only need to look to Linus torvald’s shepherding of the Linux kernel. Heavy hitters donate to the project yearly. Even submitting their own code. Nothing makes it in to the repository officially unless Torvalds and the others think it makes sense and doesn’t break anything else. They set the agenda, not the heavy hitters. And as long as other projects don’t fall on over big corporate groups and just follow their road maps to make the best products they can and want to make. There’s nothing meta or any of the others can do to destroy it. Just screaming uselessly into the void of no one listening to them.