• 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a single instance, not the entire fediverse. I know reading is hard sometimes.

    Which means it can’t be taken to represent the fediverse, which I think is what @Feyter was trying to get across.

    • Alteon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The issue is that they’re trying to get into the federverse, and draw it’s users away. Larger silicon valley companies like this are notorious for buddying up to smaller companies and opportunities like Lemmy, kbin, and Mastodon and then slowly squeezing them out. They want our content and our users, and they’ll kill the fediverse in the process.

      Just watch. It’ll start small with requested updates, how we handle content moderation, small requirements, the “we changed for you, you need to change a little for us” approach. And they’ll start asking for other “small” updates here and there that start benefitting Threads more and more, and start choking off the fediverse until we become reliant on them.

      • 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve explained elsewhere why I don’t think that’s an actual issue for the fediverse, but my comment wasn’t about Meta. It was just pointing out that the top comment in this chain from @Dee is not accurate because the fediverse doesn’t have a single, cohesive view of Meta joining the fediverse.