I thought I had a handle on what Mastodon was, but then there was this threads thing, and Lemmy is apparently also part of the Fediverse but not Mastodon, I assume, and Threads is its own thing, and calckey and kbin exist, maybe, and I'd never heard of Plume until this post...I don't understand any of this. Reddit and Twitter are how I would generally follow this sort of happening but Mastodon and Lemmy are ghost towns I don't really understand how to use. I'm so utterly lost I don't even know where to begin with finding answers. I don't even have known unknowns, just unknown in unknowns.

[–] murphys_lawyer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (7 children)

don't lose your head over this. lemmy, kbin, mastodon and apparently threads (the new twitter alternative by facebook/meta) are all part of the fediverse, which means they all follow a decentralised approach. mastodon and threads are microblogging platforms, while kbin and lemmy have a similar format to reddit. because they are all part of the fediverse, all these platforms communicate with each other and you can use kbin to subscribe to microblogs such as mastodon and have them appear in your feed. defederation basically means cutting the link between one server and another, so they can't communicate anymore.

[–] koberulz@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

you can use kbin to subscribe to microblogs such as mastodon and have them appear in your feed.

How does that even make sense? They're completely different types of content.

If Threads is just another Mastodon instance why does anyone care?

If everything is just decentralised instances what are kbin and Lemmy, exactly? They're not instances in themselves, are they?

[–] eatyourglory@mastodon.uno 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@koberulz @murphys_lawyer
Threads isn't just another Mastodon instance. Threads uses a similar format to Mastodon, and they may communicate with each other, but the similarities stop there. Threads will probably have some proprietary features to make it "stand out" from the others. Also, if many people jump on board Threads, the thing is that Meta will then have a monopoly on the Fediverse, which is the exact thing the Fediverse is trying to extinguish: Monopolies controlled by corporations.

[–] dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The "monopoly on the Fediverse" argument is something that I explicitly wanted to counter in my post. The fact is, Threads will become one of the largest if not the largest instance in the Fediverse, if we federate with them or not. Their users don't sign up to Threads to talk to us, they sign up because it's the hot new thing from Meta. If we defederate right away, they become their own bubble, their users never know we're there and they can do to their platform whatever they want.

But if we federate with them as long as they play (relatively) nice, their users will get used to being able to talk to us which gives us leverage. They will be bound to use the same protocol as us or their users will complain about not being able to talk some of their friends anymore and maybe even migrate to an open alternative. And if they still want to go through with a change we don't like, we can still refuse to implement it.

Our choice is not between Meta having a monopoly on the Fediverse and everything being as we want it. It's between them having an alternative to the fediverse that will overtake us within weeks and having a slim chance at being treated as equals.

[–] thatcasualgamingguy@lemmy.nerdcore.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

While I agree that it is probably better to not defederate them right from the start, I believe that the Fediverse might not have that much leverage. This recent blog post about the history of XMPP describes it pretty well: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

As expected, no Google user bated an eye. In fact, none of them realised. At worst, some of their contacts became offline. That was all. But for the XMPP federation, it was like the majority of users suddenly disappeared. Even XMPP die hard fanatics, like your servitor, had to create Google accounts to keep contact with friends. Remember: for them, we were simply offline. It was our fault.

Of course it's different because this is social media and not just 1:1 privat messages. But for us to actually have some leverage/impact we have to generate a lot of (good) content so that Threads users will actually notice and complain if that content "vanishes". And at the same time we must not become too dependent on their content

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is more of a warning against monopolies than access. Businesses applying resources to the Fediverse can only help it grow as long as it does not completely take over. Competition, whether it be individuals, businesses, or government, can help keep it healthy and guard against anticompetitive behaviors.

[–] dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de -5 points 1 year ago

As I said elsewhere: this would still have been the case if Google hadn't used XMPP in the first place. All those people you have lost when Google defederated either wouldn't have been on XMPP at all or care enough about privacy and open source to have both. It's not like you have lost anyone who had been there before Google started using XMPP. Same with Threads. Every single user who is on the fediverse today will still be here if they defederate (unless they leave for other, unrelated reasons of course). Considering our existing userbase's interests, I don't see many people giving up their existing accounts in favor of a Threads account.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)