▲ 123 ▼ Meta just showed off Threads’ fediverse integration for the very first time (www.theverge.com) submitted 2 years ago by Blaze@dormi.zone to c/fediverse@lemmy.world 61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) If not Threads, what would you suggest to bring the billions of people who are stuck in legacy social media into the Fediverse? Why do we need to bring billions of people here again? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] rglullis@communick.news -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because 90% of everything is crap, so the only way to make this better than the alternatives is to have larger absolute numbers and hope that we can find enough of the non-crappy 10%. I'll be honest with you: the only thing that the Fediverse has over the alternatives is the ethical superiority, but if I were just looking for quality content, this would be the last place I would be looking for. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fcuks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) If you are after larger numbers of people, why are you here and not on legacy social media where the numbers mean those platforms are better in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rglullis@communick.news 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Doesn't "the only thing that the Fediverse has over the alternatives is the ethical superiority" answer that? I am here because I want it to succeed, not because it has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fcuks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not sure what you mean by ethical superiority? There's some pretty horrible and unethical instances on the fediverse... And I disagree with you that mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rglullis@communick.news 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I am talking about the ethos of open source and decentralized systems, not the general ethics or the values of particular people or instances that are here. mass numbers of people means success It's not so much about "attracting mass numbers of people", but becoming more than just a point for fringe groups. IOW, can we make it minimally interesting for normies? Can we go beyond the "techie/anime-manga/pretentious college student/socially awkward/neurodivergent" demographic? Could we perhaps make the Fediverse a place that can be attractive for, e.g, photographers? Car Enthusiasts? Fashionistas? Wood workers? Amateur triathletes? IMO, reddit's value was never in the large communities. Aside from /r/soccer, none of the subreddits I joined had more than 500k subscribers. But the thing is: the reason that Reddit managed to have so many interesting communities in the long tail was because they managed to attract such a large number of people that even those in far tail end could still find like-minded people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago I think some of us here might just have a different definition of "success" when it comes to content on the internet. Personally, I don't agree that, mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent
[+] rglullis@communick.news -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because 90% of everything is crap, so the only way to make this better than the alternatives is to have larger absolute numbers and hope that we can find enough of the non-crappy 10%. I'll be honest with you: the only thing that the Fediverse has over the alternatives is the ethical superiority, but if I were just looking for quality content, this would be the last place I would be looking for. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fcuks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) If you are after larger numbers of people, why are you here and not on legacy social media where the numbers mean those platforms are better in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rglullis@communick.news 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Doesn't "the only thing that the Fediverse has over the alternatives is the ethical superiority" answer that? I am here because I want it to succeed, not because it has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fcuks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not sure what you mean by ethical superiority? There's some pretty horrible and unethical instances on the fediverse... And I disagree with you that mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rglullis@communick.news 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I am talking about the ethos of open source and decentralized systems, not the general ethics or the values of particular people or instances that are here. mass numbers of people means success It's not so much about "attracting mass numbers of people", but becoming more than just a point for fringe groups. IOW, can we make it minimally interesting for normies? Can we go beyond the "techie/anime-manga/pretentious college student/socially awkward/neurodivergent" demographic? Could we perhaps make the Fediverse a place that can be attractive for, e.g, photographers? Car Enthusiasts? Fashionistas? Wood workers? Amateur triathletes? IMO, reddit's value was never in the large communities. Aside from /r/soccer, none of the subreddits I joined had more than 500k subscribers. But the thing is: the reason that Reddit managed to have so many interesting communities in the long tail was because they managed to attract such a large number of people that even those in far tail end could still find like-minded people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago I think some of us here might just have a different definition of "success" when it comes to content on the internet. Personally, I don't agree that, mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fcuks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) If you are after larger numbers of people, why are you here and not on legacy social media where the numbers mean those platforms are better in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rglullis@communick.news 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Doesn't "the only thing that the Fediverse has over the alternatives is the ethical superiority" answer that? I am here because I want it to succeed, not because it has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fcuks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not sure what you mean by ethical superiority? There's some pretty horrible and unethical instances on the fediverse... And I disagree with you that mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rglullis@communick.news 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I am talking about the ethos of open source and decentralized systems, not the general ethics or the values of particular people or instances that are here. mass numbers of people means success It's not so much about "attracting mass numbers of people", but becoming more than just a point for fringe groups. IOW, can we make it minimally interesting for normies? Can we go beyond the "techie/anime-manga/pretentious college student/socially awkward/neurodivergent" demographic? Could we perhaps make the Fediverse a place that can be attractive for, e.g, photographers? Car Enthusiasts? Fashionistas? Wood workers? Amateur triathletes? IMO, reddit's value was never in the large communities. Aside from /r/soccer, none of the subreddits I joined had more than 500k subscribers. But the thing is: the reason that Reddit managed to have so many interesting communities in the long tail was because they managed to attract such a large number of people that even those in far tail end could still find like-minded people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago I think some of us here might just have a different definition of "success" when it comes to content on the internet. Personally, I don't agree that, mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rglullis@communick.news 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Doesn't "the only thing that the Fediverse has over the alternatives is the ethical superiority" answer that? I am here because I want it to succeed, not because it has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fcuks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not sure what you mean by ethical superiority? There's some pretty horrible and unethical instances on the fediverse... And I disagree with you that mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rglullis@communick.news 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I am talking about the ethos of open source and decentralized systems, not the general ethics or the values of particular people or instances that are here. mass numbers of people means success It's not so much about "attracting mass numbers of people", but becoming more than just a point for fringe groups. IOW, can we make it minimally interesting for normies? Can we go beyond the "techie/anime-manga/pretentious college student/socially awkward/neurodivergent" demographic? Could we perhaps make the Fediverse a place that can be attractive for, e.g, photographers? Car Enthusiasts? Fashionistas? Wood workers? Amateur triathletes? IMO, reddit's value was never in the large communities. Aside from /r/soccer, none of the subreddits I joined had more than 500k subscribers. But the thing is: the reason that Reddit managed to have so many interesting communities in the long tail was because they managed to attract such a large number of people that even those in far tail end could still find like-minded people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago I think some of us here might just have a different definition of "success" when it comes to content on the internet. Personally, I don't agree that, mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fcuks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not sure what you mean by ethical superiority? There's some pretty horrible and unethical instances on the fediverse... And I disagree with you that mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rglullis@communick.news 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I am talking about the ethos of open source and decentralized systems, not the general ethics or the values of particular people or instances that are here. mass numbers of people means success It's not so much about "attracting mass numbers of people", but becoming more than just a point for fringe groups. IOW, can we make it minimally interesting for normies? Can we go beyond the "techie/anime-manga/pretentious college student/socially awkward/neurodivergent" demographic? Could we perhaps make the Fediverse a place that can be attractive for, e.g, photographers? Car Enthusiasts? Fashionistas? Wood workers? Amateur triathletes? IMO, reddit's value was never in the large communities. Aside from /r/soccer, none of the subreddits I joined had more than 500k subscribers. But the thing is: the reason that Reddit managed to have so many interesting communities in the long tail was because they managed to attract such a large number of people that even those in far tail end could still find like-minded people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago I think some of us here might just have a different definition of "success" when it comes to content on the internet. Personally, I don't agree that, mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rglullis@communick.news 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I am talking about the ethos of open source and decentralized systems, not the general ethics or the values of particular people or instances that are here. mass numbers of people means success It's not so much about "attracting mass numbers of people", but becoming more than just a point for fringe groups. IOW, can we make it minimally interesting for normies? Can we go beyond the "techie/anime-manga/pretentious college student/socially awkward/neurodivergent" demographic? Could we perhaps make the Fediverse a place that can be attractive for, e.g, photographers? Car Enthusiasts? Fashionistas? Wood workers? Amateur triathletes? IMO, reddit's value was never in the large communities. Aside from /r/soccer, none of the subreddits I joined had more than 500k subscribers. But the thing is: the reason that Reddit managed to have so many interesting communities in the long tail was because they managed to attract such a large number of people that even those in far tail end could still find like-minded people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago I think some of us here might just have a different definition of "success" when it comes to content on the internet. Personally, I don't agree that, mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago I think some of us here might just have a different definition of "success" when it comes to content on the internet. Personally, I don't agree that, mass numbers of people means success permalink fedilink source parent