I see a lot of people saying they'd love to have that type of content here when Meta federates, and that those will be the best instances because they will have the most content, but they will still be accessible without compromising their privacy.

I truly don't get this.

I'm not here for mass-produced content, if I wanted that, I'd be in other platforms. The beauty of these communities is they are not filled with posts that are all the same, algorithms and bots. It's just a community of real people having conversations.

If you want mass-produced trendy content, please, consume it elsewhere, and when you are inevitably fed up, then come here and enjoy the slow-paced, real community.

PD: I hope this doesn't come across as wall-keeping (or however it's said lol), It's my honest opinion.

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

[–] revs@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I would guess it’s because this is supposed to be an open standard. Anyone should be allowed to use it.

Imagine if gmail users could only email other gmail users. If email servers didn’t all talk to each other. This is similar.

If Threads uses ActivityPub then it should be available.

But I completely get the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish fear.

Edit: I guess thread is more suited to mastodon, not Lemmy, but same argument

[–] MiscreantMouse@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gmail blocks a ton of smaller email services for generating spam / scams / malicious activity, just because a protocol is open doesn't mean it has to tolerate problematic content.

[+] ch1cken@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] MiscreantMouse@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

im honestly surprised you're using kbin or any federated service with that take lol, how could you simultaneously be for federation but also against it?

This is a silly perspective to me, but apparently it is a common misconception about federation.

IMO, just because you can federate doesn't mean you should... In fact, the ability to defederate is one of the most appealing aspects of a federated system, as a means of mitigating problematic content.

The front door to your house opens, but you don't have to open it for everyone.

[–] lemming007@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think this happens with any decentralized system: the users tend to cluster around a few big players. Those big players then get too big, get too much power and are able to control the entire system. I don't know why it's happening, I don't like it, but for some reason it does.

[–] puppy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

If you compare Fediverse to email, the analogy would be blocking spam. You would not expect to have a healthy inbox if didn't block spam, would you?

[–] coldhotman@nrsk.no 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[–] jazir5@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't do the embrace, extend, extinguish on the Fediverse because you can defederate and exclude servers you don't want to see. No one can control the Fediverse. It's like saying they'll embrace, extend, extinguish email providers. It's just content from a different source that you don't have to view if you don't want to.

[–] ampdrool@waveform.social 3 points 1 year ago

Except you can