So, with genuine curiosity, where's the line between staying on a fediverse that federates with Threads and going back to Xitter?
Sure mastodon/AP is open etc ... but there's a plausible future point where Threads/Meta is so dominant, in a similar way to how mastodon.social is now, that it unquestionable shapes the culture and policies of mainstream mastodon.
@maegul my observation is, assigning morality to which platforms a person participates in gets messy real fast.
People stick around for all sorts of justifiable reasons that get lost in the aggregate.
My attitude is, let's be loud towards the powerful people and orgs actively making the web worse. Otherwise we inadvertently cultivate a sort of social media nationalism.
So my question wasn't about judging people ... not at all actually.
It was about trying to map out this "choice" and how people see and make it.
Insofar as making this choice matters, which I presume is the belief of everyone on mastodon, surely at some point the dimensions and weights of that choice can be altered by Threads' presence/influence, even with all of the defed and blocking possibilities.
And yea ... if the whole point of social media is to connect with people/information that is interesting/attractive ...
for me, giving up on the whole "lets build something new and free" thing about masto, which is the point for me, just shines a light on everything kinda crappy about masto and all the people/things that are on big-corp-social elsewhere.
If Threads comes here, I may as well go to Xitter/Reddit or wherever interesting people are.
@maegul Twitter is still run by one man with an agenda, Mastodon will never be controlled by one person. I feel like Meta will do things to annoy the Threads userbase would could have a beneficial effect to Mastodon growth. The way I see it, Threads isn't capturing anyone who would have otherwise gone to Mastodon, at least not in a measurable way, so we should be able to continue on how we like on our respective servers
@trekman10@maegul True, those of us who came here are here because we wanted an alternative to FB and Twitter. I think my concern is how Threads will try to convince as much of its own base as possible to move here so they can spread out as much as possible. There’s more than one way to take control of something.
@flatchulancelot@maegul that would benefit us in the long run though, as they'd either see how much better it is outside of Meta's backyard or they'd get banned from whatever instance they sign up on. Maybe this will push more people to find niche mastodon communities with active admins that you can actually reach and talk to and who might even follow you when you join up
I honestly think this is fantasy that overestimates the appeal of the fedi's features and underestimates how much the appeal and value of the fedi is simply the gate-keeping, which includes keeping out those who'd never join masto but would join Threads.
I'd personally be surprised if there was any major migration from Threads to the fedi.
The only exception I can see would be those seeking out safer spaces.
@flatchulancelot@maegul you can help make that happen! If you see a Threads user that's breaking your instances rules, you should report it to your moderation.
Also, to prevent hostility within mastodon, people who want to be on #Instances that block Meta/Threads shouldn't be derided. The way Federation works, there is no reason to demand people defederate from instances that choose to allow Threads
@trekman10@maegul That’s what I like about Mastodon, that people can choose which instances they wanted to mingle with and which to block, so I’m confused why there’s been an uptick of people behaving as of this is taboo.
> why there’s been an uptick of people behaving as of this is taboo.
Many have come to find the whole defederation thing unlikeable. They’ve probably decided that they’d prefer a monolithic system and would prefer not to have to worry about instances and the “drama” they create.
Add comment