i'm not here for the ton of content that meta will produce. If I wanted this content I would had been there in the first place. It looks like somebody else is in the wrong place and is dreaming of a fediverse full of brands trying to promote their products and the influencers pretending they are real life advertisements.
its funny that you measure value by that metric.
the defederation has nothing to do with "reducing meta's number". The reason to defederate is so you're not playing their game with their own rules. Fediverse will gain absolutely nothing by playing meta's game.
Am I just misunderstanding this?
yes
what you (and other likeminded people) haven't understood is that these 2 are 2 different topics. Defederating with meta is not because people don't want to be near the users of meta. It is because meta is a huge corp and it is not here to promote the idea of a federated network. It is here to make profit and to exploit the network. Allowing them to be part of the same network will just cause harm to the network itself in the end.
I suggest you reading this article https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html which is the story of how google killed XMPP, written by one of the XMPP core developers. I believe you will see the similarities.
this argument makes sense only if you're talking about defederating instances. It doesn't make sense here. The problem is not whether we want the users of meta's instances. The problem is whether we want a huge corp be part of the fediverse. And why are we talking about it? Because people are trying not being naive and believing that meta is here because they liked the ideas of a federated network and want to participate. Meta will cause more harm than good as it has already happened in the past in different technologies/projects.
meta is not here to promote open networks. They will do more harm than good. If you want to learn more about how google achieved it with the XMPP you can read the story here https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html written by one of the core developers.
you missed the point where the open source devs were in a constant race to adapt to all the google-"innovations" and actually troubleshoot on them which ends up demotivating
i don't agree. I think it is important to maintain a blacklist instead of a whitelist where people would then submit what they need to add which will then will need to be approved etc. It will decrease the federated experience.
using your credit/debit card to verify your account is something that I also wouldn't like to do. Same as using my ID
but you're still "visiting" it. It is just your reader that makes the https request instead of your browser. In their logs and stats you are still visible. The only difference is that you will have a user-agent that shows that it is an RSS reader instead of a browser. Like:
"GET /atom.xml" 304 0 "Feedly/1.0 (+http://www.feedly.com/fetcher.html; 16 subscribers; like FeedFetcher-Google)"
And while you've the RSS reader open it while make requests periodically so we're talking for multiple visits as well.
yes, they're following the same approach. I'm really curious, didn't they see all the backslash that elon mask's actions had? Or did they see it but they believe that since twitter is still online, it means that they were correct actions?
meta (threads) will not support fediverse already. They said they will do in some later version. So for the completely practical part, you don't need to do anything right now.