The exchange is about Meta’s upcoming ActivityPub-enabled network Threads. Meta is calling for a meeting, his response is priceless!

  • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    along with being able to consume other posts via ActivityPub

    I read a new article that said it remains to be seen whether P92 will allow users to see posts from other site (they’ll broadcast to ActivityPub but undecided about displaying contents from federated servers): https://tech.co/news/meta-decentralized-social-media

    A source close to the project also told MoneyControl that “the plan as of now is that the MVP (minimum viable product) will definitely allow our users to broadcast posts to people on other servers”, but admitted the company is yet to decide whether to allow users “to follow and view the content of people on other servers.”

    If they only broadcast, but not displaying contents from other servers or allow their users to follow people from other server, then what’s the point of adding federated support if people from other servers can’t interact with them?

    • phazed09@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      This doesn’t surprise me. The idea then might be to allow for people outside of their walled garden to follow (likely for big name accounts, celebrities, athletes, important people) etc, but not really be a true federated instance. In which case, I think defederating is even more pointless. Just let users on an instance follow who they want to follow.

      • off_brand_@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        At least here, if you’re not a fan of de/federation practice, it’s minimal work to change servers.

        I’m not excited at the idea of my posts on another service entirely getting shipped off to a meta server for them to reconstruct my network through that activity. It’s the same issue of as their shadow profiles, where meta knows who you and who you know by watching the posts your mom makes on FB.

        Some of this is inevitable, I know, but I’m at least here for adding more barriers to privacy theft.

        • Bloonface@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Most people who use social media disagree, and unfortunately for you, it’s their opinions that matter most as to whether they use a given social media platform.

          I don’t really care to follow celebrities and athletes either, but I recognise at least that I am in a minority.

          • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh I’m very much aware that the majority are not people that I want to interact with. That’s why I find this whole situation so ridiculous. This community could stay it’s current size and activity level and I’d be overjoyed with it.

            Once you invite the majority to any platform, it’s ruined. The choice is quite clear to me. Meta have shown quite clearly who they are and what they are interested in. Any idiot left on their platforms at this point is not someone I care to interact with. I’m not sure why there’s any interest at all in what they have to say.

    • nzodd@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indeed, what is the point? It may be as simple as them trying to coopt the movement to get ahead of it and steal mindshare. Think Hitler and the intentional naming of “National Socialism”.

      “Oh, ActivityPub is the hot new thing, let’s check it out,” says clueless user #39,728 as they click on the first link in their Google search, which coincidentally now happens to be Facebook.