TwilightVulpine

I get the risks of putting all eggs in one basket, but whenever people argue for competition using Epic as an example, a company that is demonstrably more anti-competitive and anti-consumer, it shows that they just think of the matter of theoretical ideals of evenness as opposed to benefits to the customers. I don’t see any good coming from Epic having as much or more marketshare than Steam.

Unlike GOG which only offers DRM-free games, a substantial advantage compared to any other store.

I’m so tired of this argument. I keep hearing you guys repeating this again and again and again and again and again and it never makes sense. You take way too many conclusions for granted of how it would play out. EEE is not a cursed mantra of inevitable destruction, it’s a tactic which relies on public trends, and we are not trend chasers, we are niche users.

Extend - facebook starts adding proprietary features to their product, many users start switching, because if they use threads.net they can have the new features AND still have access to the entire network

WHY?

Would YOU really jump into Threads?

Who is this person that you imagine that dropped Facebook and Twitter, but will jump right back as soon as they so much as see it again.

Such a person wouldn’t even be here to begin with, They would already be there.

Extinguish - facebook comes to conclusion that there’s not many users on fediverse anymore, and being compatible only holds them up, so they disconnect, suddenly it gets very silent on fediverse, some people will jump to threads.net, because their friends are there, others will quit completely eventually making the network even emptier

What makes you guys so sure if a shutdown comes everyone will choose to go to Threads?

Because they got more content? Because there are more users?

Guess what, that’s HOW IT IS RIGHT NOW. With this logic, how do you even explain that we are here right now? Just because we apparently don’t get a single whiff of THE BIGGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IN THE WORLD?

It does not make sense.

Do you have so little confidence on what we have here? That nothing we offer could compare?

That’s where I disagree the most. I believe many people would like the experience they could have in the Fediverse, yet, unlike Facebook, it isn’t something widely known or advertised.

This exact thing happened with Jabber/XMPP and it was also realization that vast majority of people are not loyal to some ideals and will switch to whatever works for them.

Jabber is not a community, it’s a communication tool. A communication tool is only fit to purpose if it allows people to communicate with those they want to. Social Media is about community. There is appeal in connecting with like minded people even if not literally everyone you know is there.

And yeah, most people aren’t loyal to social media either. WE ARE NOT MOST PEOPLE. We are the people who ALREADY CHOSE ideals over convenience. Or, more cynically, functionality. Because Meta’s inscrutable algorithms suck for anyone wishing to tailor their own experience, which is why I doubt they can even meaningfully Expand to begin with.

I would bet that if such integration came and went away, the Fediverse will come out of it bolstered. I don’t doubt Facebook would try EEE, but what they stand to gain is insignificant and very debatable, and what we stand to gain is enormous.

Don’t take their complete takeover as granted. If things played out as they intended so easily we would all be on the Metaverse paying for digital replicas of street art or some other other unexplicable bulshit.

Well, I do care about the good people. And I want the to come to the Fediverse.

Right? I don’t know how to express any more clearly for the people who already are here that being here right now is the proof that there are people will choose a better platform over the most popular one. Unless they are admitting they are personally one temptation away from returning to Facebook.

Nowhere near? In absolute numbers you must mean, right? Because there are Fediverse instances that are completely dominated by all kinds of horrible hateful people. Merely looking at some instance blocklists is enough to feel the stench of the radioactive sludge pits of toxicity that are in this ecosystem. Facebook sucks but even its lacking moderation is still better than many instances on the Fediverse.

Of course, I don’t want to invite the toxic people, though some might come regardless, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to just treat it like it’s all toxic people. The good people who still use Facebook and Instagram also outnumber the entire Fediverse as well.

The Fediverse has no lack of toxic people, entire toxic instances, and we can handle them just fine.

I think in this discussion people aren’t putting in perspective that Facebook as a platform can suck but that doesn’t mean all their userbase is terrible and ill-intentioned. There’s a lot of different people there that could become good contributors in the Fediverse.

I don’t think we should invite Mark Zuckerberg to get the reins of Lemmy, but if some of the artists at Instagram and Threads decide that Mastodon is worthwhile, that’d be pretty good.

I hear that, but I see it the other way around.

Like you, I have some niche interests, and to be honest the Lemmyverse is still lacking on that sense. I’m here more in hopes of what it might become someday, than because it appeals to me as it is. Most communities I’d like to participate of simply don’t exist here. Yeah I know “why don’t you make them”, but I don’t have the time to cultivate and manage a community. I find myself hopping back to Reddit because as much as that place is on a decline, it has those communities.

Like you say, integration or no integration, if the communities and content isn’t there, people will not come, or they will lose interest. This is already happening. Even with the occasional exodus only a few communities manage to be self-sustaining. Facebook can’t kill the Fediverse. Obscurity can kill the Fediverse. Your disaster scenario of what maybe could happen with Facebook is something that is on the verge of happening without Facebook anyway, all that might take is that one of the handful of people keeping the little movement there is in some of the niche communities gets tired and gives up.

As much as Facebook may control their platform and integration, they don’t control the people, and I’m sure some amount of people will be like “this place sucks” and hop over because they will see there are alternatives. If Facebook sets it up and then cuts it off, there will be people who will miss it and decide to move to the Fediverse for good. A small fraction of Facebook defectors would be enough to make this place much more lively. And again, would people just give up without Facebook content? It still seems like this is underestimating the people who want to make this place thrive or wish not to be beholden by Facebook.

I’ve seen people bringing this up, but while they talk of EEE and XMPP, it seems like the analogy here is not being quite finished and formulated.

If we apply that to this, it seems like people are saying “if Meta changed the ActivityPub protocol to favor them and become incompatible with the rest of the Fediverse, Fediverse users would choose to return to Meta-owned platforms.”

And that’s what I’m questioning. Would you? Would you think others here would? I wouldn’t. I’d rather go to whatever fork Fediverse devs favor instead. If anything, all the fear being expressed every time Threads integration is brought up only emphasizes that this is not how it would play out

…we already are all certified weirdoes. The average internet user doesn’t have a single clue what Lemmy or Mastodon is. There isn’t an Established Fediverse Institution that is household name for regular people on social media.

Meta could buy up lemmy.world and mastodon.social and they’d end up… exactly in the same place because most people who got into those got there to avoid big social media companies to begin with, and they’d jump ship immediately. This is the alternative social media movement. The people who are on established protocols are the ones who are already on Facebook and Twitter, and many don’t even like those. They only stick around on those because everything else sounds too complicated for them.

Facebook and Twitter are today’s social media GMail and Outlook equivalents. Lemmy and Mastodon are not.

People throw EEE around full of fear but it just sounds like it just became a sort of boogeyman mantra. It doesn’t apply. There isn’t some magic that can make Meta dominate a whole decentralized ecosystem like this. The only possible way for it to happen is if everyone decided to jump back there (which is what happened to GMail and Outlook) but paradoxically because Fediverse users are so paranoid of even vaguely coexisting in an interconnected vicinity, the odds of that happening are zero.

If you think just linking an URL is enough to persuade people to join, either you are surrounded by exceptionally tech savvy people, or you never actually tried. Getting some people to make a Mastodon account is harder than pulling teeth.

But if they were already peeking from the window, maybe they just might.

You have a point Threads will definitely try to skew the experience in some way, but if they make it too bad, they will be the ones looking bad for it, because the average Meta user doesn’t even know what the Fediverse is. So they need to show some good stuff too.

And really, I don’t know who is it that y’all are imagining that dropped Facebook and Twitter for ActivityPub, but they’ll jump back in as soon as they get a whiff. I actually tried Threads. It sucks. Why would folks give up on the Fediverse for it?

No, but I would like to bring some of my friends and family members who use Facebook over to the Fediverse, and I believe it’s easier if they can already see what it’s like.

Absolutely. The Fediverse has some gross ass places I don’t want to touch with a 10-foot pole.

How would they even extinguish a whole ecosystem of independent instances? What does that even look like?

They could very well make some feature or requirement and demand that every single ActivityPub instance uses their version to remain compatible…

…and instance hosts can just say no, fork it and keep going unbothered.

Even buying up some big Lemmies and Mastodons is not going to get them the whole Fediverse.

This is what I don’t get about the anti-Meta paranoia. Their worst case scenario is… exactly the same as we have now. They can’t make every single instance hand them over their whole userbases, that’s not how federation works.

I get why they don’t like Meta, but I have friends who use Facebook and Instagram, and maybe it would be nice if they could get a taste of the Fediverse experience. We might end up gaining more than Meta.

I don’t think isolationism is going to help the Fediverse thrive, or that there are no worthwhile users on Facebook platforms that could be persuaded to come this way if they get to see what it’s like.

Having to deal with toxicity from that would suck, but it’s not as if the Fediverse is this pure untainted land either. Worst comes to worst, instances can defederate them.

Absolutely true. The reason why so many games have cut down on standalonge games and player hosting options is that it allows them to control and sell microtransactions better. Who would buy skins if there’s modding? Who would buy lootboxes if you can use a couple commands to have all the abilities and the best equipment in the game? They need to restrict player control so that only they can sell extras and power-ups.

Our ownership is undermined so that we can be fleeced on top of that.

The utter meaninglessness of “buying”, or even worse, “gambling” for a single instance of an in-game item that is stored in a server we have no control over really appalls me. They managed to completely mix up the players’ perception of value to the point they can’t tell apart what is additional content from what is an insignificant fictional gameplay element. Say, producing infinite gold coins costs nothing for the developers.

Minecraft has both a single player mode and multiplayer which can be either hosted by the player themselves or by Microsoft. I wouldn’t deny that Minecraft Realms, Microsoft’s server subscription, is a service. But Minecraft, the game, has no reason to be considered a service.

Copies from before the Microsoft Launcher should still be yours just fine I assume.

Is a game even a service to begin with? The servers which provide online services to a game may be one, but why would the same apply to standalone instances of a software that you have purchased? At most I could see why this could mean they aren’t obligated to continue offering updates, but not that it ought to allow them to take back the software they sold.

All of this is only happening because the law does not give a damn about customer rights anymore. It’s entirely dishonest to visibly sell something and then turn around and say “we only sold ‘access’”. That’s not what a sale means. Companies were simply allowed to redefine what purchases and ownership means, and they are trying to do the same even with devices you physically carry with you.