Meta/Instagram launched a new product called Threads today (working title project92). It adds a new interface for creating text posts and replying to them, using your Instagram account. Of note, Meta has stated that Threads plans to support ActivityPub in the future, and allow federation with ActivityPub services. If you actually look at your Threads profile page in the app your username has a threads.net tag next to it - presumably to support future federation.

Per the link, a number of fediverse communities are pledging to block any Meta-directed instances that should exist in the future. Thus instance content would not be federated to Meta instances, and Meta users would not be able to interact with instance content.

I’m curious what the opinions on this here are. I personally feel like Meta has shown time and time again that they are not very good citizens of the Internet; beyond concerns of an Eternal September triggered by federated Instagram, I worry that bringing their massive userbase to the fediverse would allow them to influence it to negative effect.
I also understand how that could be seen to go against the point of federated social media in the first place, and I’m eager to hear more opinions. What do you think?

  • TheGreatHerald@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s true. But technologically, is it feasible? Someone with more experience in that sort of thing should inform the community on what’s possible to prevent.

    • tobor@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      At this point, I really don’t know. But I guess the difference is that here, or possibly other instances at least the users can have a say in it. Posting topics like this helps.

      That for me feels way better than just having some company give out the terms and having us accept it whether we like it or not.

      I feel like this is all still new enough to where we can shape it in a different direction than “growth at all costs”