• misk@sopuli.xyzOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to move to a server that federates with Threads so that you’re not at a whim of Meta but still able to talk to people there? The point of social networks is communication with friends and those might not be so eager to jump. They might even hear from you how other servers and apps are better and move eventually :)

    • recursive_recursion they/them@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      That makes no sense.

      Any sensible person would want to avoid/run from trouble, not move towards it.
      By continuing to interact with Thread users you’re enabling those users to feel justified in not wanting to leave.

      This system is similar to what creates regimes like the CCP or North Korea to enforce their citizens to obey their rule otherwise their connections to their family and friends are at risk.

      • to break this system people must run (brain drain), by staying you enable those at the top to threaten others close to you to listen to them. It’s a cyclic toxic structure.
      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        By continuing to interact with Thread users you’re enabling those users to feel justified in not wanting to leave.

        People do not have to leave Threads. They should, but they don’t have to. No harm in interacting with them. In fact, such interaction will make them aware of the alternatives.

      • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        I have this radical idea that Threads users are people too.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      yep. this is exactly why i wont defederate threads. i want to give those users an option, but still be able to talk to their friends.

      theres a bunch of … people… who think that meta will somehow take over the activtypub protocol and fuck everyone over, but that just cant happen with the consortium as it is.

      the only thing people have to fear from meta on the fediverse is a better interface attracting more users than other servers… and if you cant solve that you deserve to fail

      • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        This has already happened with federated services (XMPP)

        It’s not a conspiracy, there is proven history of EEE techniques being successfully used to capture an audience and then destroy the adoption of the protocol.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 day ago

          there is proven history of EEE techniques being successfully used to capture an audience and then destroy the adoption of the protocol.

          That won’t happen to Fediverse because nobody here is willing to be ‘captured’ and ‘destroyed’. We don’t give a fuck if Threads wants to break its own protocol.

        • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          your premise seems invalid on its face. i would argue that google did not, actually, kill xmpp. that protocol is still in use today, its just not popular.

          again, the biggest problem the fediverse has is just threads having a better product on the same, open protocol. eee? ha, whatever

          • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

            Browser incompatibilities:

            The plaintiffs in an antitrust case claimed Microsoft had added support for ActiveX controls in the Internet Explorer Web browser to break compatibility with Netscape Navigator, which used components based on Java and Netscape’s own plugin system.

            On CSS, data:, etc.: A decade after the original Netscape-related antitrust suit, the Web browser company Opera Software filed an antitrust complaint against Microsoft with the European Union, saying it “calls on Microsoft to adhere to its own public pronouncements to support these standards, instead of stifling them with its notorious ‘Embrace, Extend and Extinguish’ strategy”.[15]

            Office documents: In a memo to the Office product group in 1998, Bill Gates stated: “One thing we have got to change in our strategy – allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other people’s browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destory [sic] Windows.”[16]

            Breaking Java’s portability: The antitrust case’s plaintiffs also accused Microsoft of using an “embrace and extend” strategy with regard to the Java platform, which was designed explicitly with the goal of developing programs that could run on any operating system, be it Windows, Mac, or Linux. They claimed that, by omitting the Java Native Interface (JNI) from its implementation and providing J/Direct for a similar purpose, Microsoft deliberately tied Windows Java programs to its platform, making them unusable on Linux and Mac systems. According to an internal communication, Microsoft sought to downplay Java’s cross-platform capability and make it “just the latest, best way to write Windows applications”.[17] Microsoft paid Sun Microsystems US$20 million in January 2001 (equivalent to $34.41 million in 2023[18]) to settle the resulting legal implications of their breach of contract.[19]

            More Java issues: Sun sued Microsoft over Java again in 2002 and Microsoft agreed to settle out of court for US$2 billion[20][21] (equivalent to US$3.23 billion in 2023[18]).

            Instant messaging: In 2001, CNET described an instance concerning Microsoft’s instant messaging program.[22] “Embrace” AOL’s IM protocol, the de facto standard of the 1990s and early 2000s. “Extend” the standard with proprietary Microsoft addons which added new features, but broke compatibility with AOL’s software. Gain dominance, since Microsoft had 95% OS share and their MSN Messenger was provided for free. Finally, “extinguish” and lock out AOL’s IM software, since AOL was unable to use the modified MS-patented protocol.

            Email protocols: Microsoft supported POP3, IMAP, and SMTP email protocols in their Microsoft Outlook email client. At the same time, they developed their own email protocol, MAPI, which has since been documented but is largely unused by third parties. Microsoft has announced that they would end support for the less secure basic authentication, which lacks support for multi-factor authentication, access to Exchange Online APIs for Office 365 customers, which disables most use of IMAP or POP3 and requires significant upgrades to support the more secure OAuth2 based authentication in applications in order to continue to use those protocols;[23] some customers have responded by simply shutting off older protocols.[24]