118
For a Universal Declaration on Fediverse Rights, or: At the Core of the Threads-Debate lies a deeper problem: how can the Fediverse grow without losing its soul in the process? (fungiverse.wordpress.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

The terrorists moral shortcomings are even more reasons to negotiate with them and try to win them over

You're not negotiating with the terrorists (Meta), you're engaging with the public to explain why the terrorists are bad and why they shouldn't buy what's being sold.

The argument is that we aren't going to win this with sheer numbers or funding, so we need to slowly get people to understand why they are better off picking Mastodon/Fediverse over threads. Every instagram user is already being tossed into Threads, and you can't bring those people over if they never see posts or content from the Fediverse

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    you can’t bring those people over if they never see posts or content from the Fediverse

    It's still possible. Reddit didn't became popular because it federated with Digg.

    When Lemmy will become the reference for human provided answers, people will join. How fast it will happen depends on how bad the experience on Reddit becomes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Maybe. But that's a big maybe. It could equally be that Threads becomes the most powerful entity on the Fediverse and what they do becomes law (like shutting off a certain instance).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    Yea the other part of my reasoning is to try and prevent them from getting to that point.

    The short version of which is that our biggest selling point is "Join Mastodon, you can see all the same content and do the same things, but it's run by a non-profit instead of Facebook". Defederation means we lose that point, and it's going to be very difficult for Mastodon to compete with the money and manpower that facebook has.

    "Join Mastodon to see content that you can't see otherwise" will have a much harder time competing with "Join Threads to see content that you can't see otherwise"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    In principle, yes. But if 99% of users are on one server, then that server has a disproportional amount of power in the network. If they choose to defederate another server, it's essentially a death sentence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    That is not really true and anyone who actually believes that is in for a rude awakening.

    See I think that you're a bit confused because when they say that or things similar to that what they really mean is that no one person controls the fediverse. Not that there are no laws or rules because they're absolutely are.

    For example if you go around spouting bigotry you will find yourself banned from a majority of public federated servers, and if you are on a server that you are not the owner of you will likely find yourself banned from that one. The fact that it's decentralized does not mean that it doesn't have rules or is some kind of free speech safe haven.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent