Those of you not plugged into the Mastodon community may not be aware of the predominant reaction to Instagram Threads. This started when it was merely rumored, reaching a crescendo with reports that Meta had been talking to a few of the larger Mastodon instances under NDA, presumably to encourage them not to “defederate” with Threads when it came online.1 Let me describe that reaction for you, with only mild exaggeration:
As much as Meta is an awful company, it’s not a biohazard. The crowds of people in it and who interact with its platforms don’t carry it in their bodies like a plague. And this is what it really is about, the people.
I believe defederation is a mistake because this is an opportunity to show people over there, who are possibly freshly out of Twitter and looking for a place to settle in, that there are better platforms to be in.
No, it’s far more malevolent.
Have you explored any of the research on the neurochemistry of social media? It’s too early to have a strong foundation, but what’s there isn’t good. Facebook is absolutely designing their algorithm to change your brain chemistry to suit their purposes, which means lots of toxicity so they can feed your “engagement” to advertisers. It absolutely physically changes your brain, and it’s not for the better.
It’s not about the people. It’s about whether you can trust their servers talking to yours. It’s about how much of the community they can split out into terrible “Facebook compatible” servers that they can bully their way into controlling.
There’s no path to federating with anything Facebook owns not being a catastrophe.
There is something to what you are saying, but at this point you are overblowing it and otherizing people just because they participate in a social media platform you don’t approve of. Yes, social media alters people’s neurochemistry, but it doesn’t mean Thread’s users are mind controlled by Mark Zuckerberg.
And it is about the people. However much you don’t like the company itself, and I don’t either, there are millions of people there that are worth engaging with. Treating it as a faceless evil monolith is oversimplifying the matter.
It’s also almost conspiracionist how these discussions have been going. How exactly will they bully their way into controlling a decentralized ecosystem? If you think Meta can just pressure every admin and none of them would resist, not only that is putting no confidence in the Fediverse, what makes you think defederating is going to prevent that from happening? If you start from the assumption that nobody has any principles and corporate influence can’t be resisted, then it’s all for nothing. It would be only a matter of time for the Fediverse to be swallowed.
But as far as motivations and structure goes, I don’t think it is so fragile.
I’m merely describing the actual real physical changes that Facebook causes, on purpose. Every single click you make on Facebook makes you a worse human being.
Those people are still welcome to join here. They just shouldn’t be permitted to do it through a server known to be malicious. Facebook is malware and letting it connect to your server makes your server just as dangerous.
Monopolies don’t just exist when you literally only have one choice. Having 90% of the market in and of itself is an extremely powerful position. It happens all the time to decentralized systems.
It’s not just Facebook that causes neurochemical effects, it’s every social media that people use compulsively. To be fair I don’t doubt that they deliberately try to manipulate their users, but that’s not something they have full control over.
Come on. Really?
There is criticizing Meta as a company, for which there are plenty of reasons, and then there is fearmongering. If you think Meta is Satan I don’t disagree, but hold back on judging the users for the sin of existing there. I don’t think my aunt who used to send me good morning messages on Facebook is getting worse every click.
Which is exactly why I want them to see us and know that we exist. Isn’t it so bad for them to be on Meta? Lets show there are alternatives. Not everyone is keeping up with the Fediverse, and many people hear of Mastodon only to not understand it and forget about it. If they can see the Fediverse and realize that people have a better experience in it, they might finally make the jump.
As far as monopoly goes, that is a forgone conclusion. Federation or defederation, they immediately became the largest and most influential Twitter alternative. Once it gets on ActivityPub. it will be the largest instance. That’s not something that can be stopped. Seems to me that by cutting ourselves off of it we are only isolating ourselves into a niche out of fear.
And the fact is Threads has what, 10M users already? And Mastodon has like 2M? They’re already a success and leeching the 2M off of Mastodon isn’t a big success for them.
My fear was that Threads was going to steal users into their ecosystem but if there’s going to be federation, right now it looks to me like Mastodon actually stands to benefit more than Threads from it (not taking into account EU regulatory systems).
Over 100 million users as of today, not 10 million.