“Threads is deepening its ties to the fediverse, also known as the open social web, which powers services like X alternative Mastodon, Pixelfed, PeerTube, Flipboard and other apps. On Wednesday, Meta announced that users on Threads will be able to see fediverse replies on other posts besides their own. In addition, posts that originated through the Threads API, like those created via third-party apps and scheduling services, will now be syndicated to the fediverse. The latter had previously been announced via an in-app message informing users that API posts would be shared to the fediverse starting on August 28.”
Other than general assumptions and track-record and being a business that sells user data, is there any actual evidence or clear and present ways that Meta could do harm to the Fediverse / its users?
All I’ve read is that it seems suspicious and we shouldn’t trust them. I totally agree with that but I’d like someone to give some examples of what they could do as a member of the network. I’ve read how they could post advertising – how would that work?
I ask because, like the previous comment, the idea of following people from other, more popular, federated platforms from the comfort and security of “open source” (?) platforms is appealing. At the same time, if this is leaving me and my platform vulnerable to something specific, I’d like to either proceed with caution or not proceed at all.
The biggest loss for me when leaving Twitter was losing access to so much happening in my community and local news and government organizations. They’re all still posting on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and not moving to the open social web. More and more are moving to Threads though so it would be nice to maintain / regain exposure.
The basic idea is that a huge company with infinite money creates software that supports an open standard, such as Threads. Next they spend significant amounts of money driving users to their software, rather than an open software equivalent. Once they’ve captured a huge percent of all users of the open standard, they abandon the open standard, going with a proprietary one instead. They’ll make up some new feature to justify this and sell it as a positive. Because they control almost all of the users at this point, many of the users they don’t control will decide to switch over to their software, otherwise the value of the open standard drops significantly overnight for them. What’s left is a “dead” open standard that still technically exists but is no longer used. You can find plenty of past examples of this pattern, such as Google and XMPP.
Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Why go through all that trouble when they’ve already accomplished the end goal you’ve outlined?
To kill any competition and ensure they retain control over future standards. Money. It’s pretty straightforward.
You are right, it’s easy to imagine the open source standard being a small financial threat. But a similar situation could potentially still happen, just without the malice the previous poster is imagining. Overall, large orgs make the biggest ripples in software development, so their choices of what to support affect what’s most available to users.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish