Mastodon's official stance on Threads
There’s been a lot of speculation around what Threads will be and what it means for Mastodon. We’ve put together some of the most common questions and our responses based on what was launched today.
You're viewing a single thread.
XMPP did not exist on its own outside of nerd circles, while ActivityPub enjoys the support and brand recognition of Mastodon.
Jabber was widely used in the early 2000s and not just among "nerds." But Rochko would have only been 7+ years old at the time so how would he know that.
The "brand recognition of Mastodon" part makes me think this has to be a joke... right?
yeah, honestly, i think the optimism is somewhat misplaced. we must ensure that proprietary solutions, like threads, are not the main way people interact with the fediverse. it's better to defederate early and continue in smaller communities while we still can, than to let them seep into every community we have, only for them to pull the plug later and lock everyone into threads.
i think it's alright to federate with them a little bit, but we cannot allow threads to become the most popular fediverse app
I may be speaking in defense of something I don't know, but I don't see a direct problem with other apps (e.g., Threads, Twitter if they change up what they're doing) to start talking with the fediverse.
The bigger problem is when they start throwing their weight around. The W3C (and groups like Mozilla) have had many strong battles with Google trying weird stuff because they're the biggest guys in the room (e.g., FLoC).
As long as we can rally behind the loyalist FLOSS geeks, we'll always be alright.
Yeah, it's actually a welcome change that they're federating. However, the way they killed off the last federation we had with XMPP was through the EEE model -- they first acted friendly, joined our federation, then they ensured their client would be the best featured, capturing a majority of the people in their user base, and after that they defederated and the community collapsed in their favor. People on non-proprietary solutions had to switch to the proprietary one.
To avoid this, we need to defederate while we're still ahead. I'd personally draw the line at 25%, but the point is just having it significantly less than 50%. If they defederate before they reach a majority, the community will collapse in our favor, and people with proprietary accounts will be the ones forced to come over here. Worst case, we'll just exist beside each other as competitors, and in the best case we'll snuff them out.
We need to be willing to do this to them, because they absolutely will do this to us. Threads is developed by the same Meta who helped kill XMPP a decade ago. (And "helped" only because the main culprit was Google -- regardless, they're not our friends.)
To avoid this, we need to defederate while we’re still ahead. I’d personally draw the line at 25%, but the point is just having it significantly less than 50%
With Meta, the line needs to be drawn at 0%
To avoid this, we need to defederate while we’re still ahead. I’d personally draw the line at 25%, but the point is just having it significantly less than 50%.
Mastodon has 13 million users. In the first few hours, Threads already had 10 million users. That battle was lost before it even started.
bring on the nukes then
Threads is now at 30 million users.
So how do people go about defederating? Is it just a matter of making new servers, or does it require anything else?
I'm happy to stand up against The Man, but it seems like once the masses get involved they don't feel personally responsible to preserve what they enjoy. They seem to give general consensus to [Big Tech Company], then [hard-working FLOSS developer] comes in later to fix it.
If I'm going to get "political" here, I almost think people need to be sold more on the importance of self-reliance. One prior historical precedent was around the 1750's about taxation, and that's had a nearly non-trivial impact on society. People intuitively grasp land ownership, so it should translate to data ownership as well.
it's a call to instance admins in the first round, they can just add meta's platforms to their blocklist and be done with it. some will definitely do so, others may refuse. then if you're not happy with their decision you may switch instances or even spin up your own
Wouldn't threads be able to garner users just by existing? Meta has enough funds to advertise it effectively to people. I do not see how they could end up with small number of users.
Man who signed NDA with Meta is suddenly gushing about Threads. I know, I know, this isn’t just anybody.
He addressed a few issues very topically but side stepped a major one. What happens if Threads takes off and Meta decides to enforce a trusted partner network by defederating all but a handful of instances unless they conform to Meta’s demands?
After all, if we allow Threads to grow to a successful size, that is where almost everybody will be. It is why Lemmy was a tiny project for a long time until Reddit and Twitter fucked up too badly and for too long. Twitter sucked all the air out of the room for Mastodon. Arguably still does despite itself. And Reddit did the same with Lemmy by simply existing.
Now imagine if Reddit made a Lemmy instance, kept policies around to make it grow large, then cracked down with an iron fist once they had the dominant position?
Eugen considers what would happen if Meta abandoned ActivityPub. But I don’t think would need to happen. They just need to wall off. They can keep the standard.
Another example: Google and RCS. The RCS Android users have isn’t the open standard. Google built a layer of proprietary middleware around it. They fiercely guard API access, which is why only a few “trusted partners” get to use it. And now Google is RCS. There are no more competitors even though it is open.
Because Google sucked all the air out of the room and became the dominant player able to dictate to the rest.
And so, too, will happen with ActivityPub and this whole shebang unless we stop them from being interoperable first. I get Eugen wants this tech to grow and prosper. But you don’t do it by making deals with the devil.
The one thing that you can trust 100% in all of this is that Meta's intentions are evil, because Meta's intentions are always evil. They see a new community finding its footing as prey to be seduced with features and then slaughtered for profit. They meet leaders behind closed doors and make them sign NDAs. Next, they'll start throwing around their unlimited resources to take over.
Immediate and universal defederation is the only answer. It's the only defense.
From what I recall, it was FB & Google federation of XMPP, and a huge number of various IM bridges that made XMPP usable at the time. I did have my own server, and all the nerd/geek friends I knew (so the vast majority of my friends) did the same. I even set up a servers at $job[-2] for intra-office communication, but still couldn't get decent buy-in.
These days, aside from a few die-hards, I don't personally know anyone using XMPP. I even ended up removing my server a while ago, because it had been years since I even launched a client to connect to it and not chat with anyone...
Google Talk was using XMPP from 2006-2013. Facebook Chat was using XMPP from 2010-2014.
It was these two services that killed all the prior messaging apps (and eventually XMPP too), and I was referring to the before-times.
What's your definition of widely used? Because Jabber definitely wasn't widely used lol. Like a handful of companies adopted it for internal communication, but other than that it was all tech enthusiasts. MSN Messenger was widely used in the early 00s.