1057

Lemmy.world Should Defederate with Threads (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

410 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of us are here to avoid another corporate takeover of our preferred platforms. It would seem to me to be a tad irresponsible to allow Facebook into our space with open arms, allowing them to hoover up our data. I would love to keep using Lemmy.world, but will happily change instances if need be, and I feel many share that sentiment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But the net isnt like that. People have just as much freedom creating a Threads account as they do a Lemmy or Mastodon account.

It's not about creating an account or not, it's about the conversations, who views them, how inclusive are they to all.

The people who would be making comments are not the same people that are running Meta.

And don’t say that the fediverse is too difficult to understand for the average person. That kind of rhetoric is what will push people away.

It is a barrier entry though for many (for whatever reasons). I don't think you can just hand wave it away like that; that's not constructive.

Everyone needs to be patient with growth. It’s not going to happen in a year just like it took years for reddit to grow.

The situation is different now, than back then with the starting of Reddit. This time you have a 800 pound gorilla dancing in your living room.

I do believe that more and more people will be interested in the fediverse once they realize that corporate oversight is non existent here.

Unfortunately the Fediverse account creation difficulty barrier of entry may be higher than avoiding corporate oversight. People take the path of least resistance usually. (And yes, it bums me out big time saying that, as we should all try to avoid corporate oversight.)

And that can only happen if we keep the major instances disconnected from Meta or any for profit company.

That's not the only way though. Good moderation will also prevent that from happening.

So, I don't have a dog in this hunt. Personally I would lean more towards not defederating, to be inclusive, as I'm just an 70s/80s liberal who believes free speech for all, and that it would do more harm than good by excluding a whole bunch of people from conversing with a whole other bunch of people.

Having said that, I do see good points being made on both sides, it's not a clean decision to make, it's not binary, it's analog.

But it does seem to me like a lot of the comments being made on the subject are knee-jerk advocacy based, gatekeepingy.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Nope, I'm fine with small companies trying to make the fediverse better. Meta is full on enshitification, why wouldn't they bring a new form that we can't predict over here?

[-] Angry_Maple@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's always odd when people stretch inclusivity to mean that absolutely everyone should be able to freely breeze past any and all possible barriers, with no effort.

Internet security, you guys. There has to be SOME minimum activity requirement, or this whole site would be swamped with an insane number of bots. There are multiple written tutorials and video tutorials that tell you exactly what to click and when, in order to sign up. How much easier does it need to be to join? What can you do beyond a video walkthrough for account creation? How the hell did they join reddit? I just don't get it.

Sometimes these topics kind of remind me of people like the parents who argue that babies and toddlers belong at raves and busy nightclubs. Sometimes having multiple different groups are ok. You don't usually see videos about how to fix your car on the cooking channel. You also don't usually get proper accounting advice from random insect documentaries.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s always odd when people stretch inclusivity to mean that absolutely everyone should be able to freely breeze past any and all possible barriers, with no effort.

Internet security, you guys. There has to be SOME minimum activity requirement, or this whole site would be swamped with an insane number of bots.

Nice strawman you got there. We're talking about access to comments made by human beings.

In all forms of communication and commenting, moderation should happen to remove bots as much as possible.

How much easier does it need to be to join?

Apparently people are used to a single server source, and a federation of multiple servers seems to be a blocking point for them. /shrug

[-] Angry_Maple@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

What do you suggest then? I'm listening. There has to be some in-between that you must see.

You're making it out as if there's an easy solution that makes everyone happy.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Meta is full on enshitification, why wouldn’t they bring a new form that we can’t predict over here?

The people who would be making comments are not the same people that are running Meta.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

What does Meta get out of this?

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Meta is full on enshitification, why wouldn’t they bring a new form that we can’t predict over here?

The people who would be making comments are not the same people that are running Meta.

What does Meta get out of this?

Would I be talking to the c-suite, or to regular people?

Edit: I get it, truly. You want to punish the corporation for bad behavior, and I definately agree with that sentiment; voting with your wallet.

But we are talking about excluding people from conversations, and not hurting the c-suite. Defederation hurts everybody else more than the c-suite. The 800 lb gorilla is already dancing in your living room.