I’m against the defederation. The internet and the www are based on the idea of connection.

By all means, fuck Meta to the moon and back, but for goodness' sake, users on federated servers can choose to block the domain with the same result, not to mention that admins can simply restrict it (see social.coop/@eloquence/1115888…). It just isn't so black and white as people are making it seem.

Federation with a bigger platform is realistically the only way for Fedi to become mainstream, and at the moment Meta seems at least to be trying to be communicative. And with their quite unvaluable userbase they really don't have enough leverage against the privacy-concious Fediverse to turn AP into MetaPub. For now.

I'd personally at least give them a chance. Defederating is a pretty easy process and can be performed at any point in time. At least some Threads users may as well get to know about Lemmy and switch to it.

Upd: yes I do understand many people don't trust Meta and neither do I. But I also understand lots and lots of users here are using anonymous accounts, and federation information is already public to begin with. Combining the fact that Fediverse may gain more than it may lose, including more users, original content, recognition and etc, I generally think it's worth the risk. I am generally content with any decision, just sharing my two pennies of thought.

Let the user decide. If lemmy/mastodon user wants to block threads, let them. Defederating entirely is idiotic gatekeeping.

Why do you hate user choice so much?

Aside from the "moral" argument, can someone ELI5 what harm can a federated threads.net do on other users (like me) and/or instances?

Oddly, this may well be what really spurs on decentralisation. I suspect more and more individuals, or small groups, will spin up their own instances rather than all gravitating to the bigger ones, due to issues like this.

Because, ultimately, the more tech-savvy users (the ones more likely to be into the Fediverse, anyway) will want to decide for themselves what content they do and don't see.

And it's nothing to do with whether or note someone likes/trusts Meta. It's people being able to make their own decisions on what content they want to be able to follow and not have it decided by someone else based on their interests. If someone's friends/family/fandom has a heavy Threads presence, they can spin up their own instance and be able to follow that content themselves without it really affecting anyone else. (and without having to sign up to Threads themselves...)

Why? This sounds like FUD.

Well, I said before I'll leave any servers that federate with Meta, and it's looking like that time.

People are overreacting.

I'm not too worried about Threads joining the metaverse. What Mark Zuckerberg has failed to realise is just how barebones his Twitter clone is.

Mastodon has support for trending topics and hashtags. Threads doesn't. Lacking such an absolutely basic feature that any microblogging platform would otherwise support is why Threads dropped from 500M active users to just a fraction of it.

I joined it near launch, made a few posts and then stopped. There is nothing worthwhile on Threads and I don't think leeching on to the fediverse.

Also, I can kinda understand why you all rushed to defederate from Gab when they tried to jump on the federation bandwagon, but not Meta.

Zuckerberg doesn't need us to overtake X. He needs to actually make a functional social media app first, then put more resources into moderating it.

X is still on top despite Elon Musk's stewardship because his competitors are either too small (most federated instances), require too big of a technical hurdle for the average Joe to use (the fediverse in general), or are downright incompetent (Threads.)