Eh, I can see politicians self hosting their own instances from their party or what have you. Same with governments. There is a potential as well that x.com may decide to federate out of survival if it gets too big.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Why would they self-host and do work when they could just use Threads? It's not like FB gives a fuck about treasonous political parties.

[–] 520@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The same reason Trump has his own social network.

Own instances give a lot more control. They can be as outrageous as they like, full on Trumpian, even. They can also control what gets said in that space much more effectively, seeing as how they are the mods and admins. And they don't have to worry about Meta or Reddit (I doubt Musk even cares) getting media backlash and removing them from the platform entirely.

Sure, Threads can defed from any controversial instances but it will be trivial to create a mirror that effectively refederates the problem instance.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The same reason Trump has his own social network.

Didn't that only start when he was threatened for being kicked off Twitter?

But the other points for censoring ideas make sense.

[–] 520@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Didn't that only start when he was threatened for being kicked off Twitter?

Exactly. No one is gonna kick you off your own platform, or in fediverse terms, your own instance. The most others can do is defed from you, but that's easy enough to get around if you're determined.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Trump being deplatformed, while having good reason, could have likely concerned cabinets and governments worldwide that they may as well "just in case". Also, having something like "10downingstreet@social.gov.uk" or "potus@social.whitehouse.gov" seems more legit then "10downingstreet@threads.net" or "potus@threads.net". It's a similar idea why they don't use gmail/outlook addresses

Keep in mind, I'm talking governments and media organisations. They could likely just ask an intern to do it for them lmao. The benefits outweigh the cost. Even plenty of tech nerds have personal instances.

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is just a guess, but I think that the likelihood of Twitter federating is almost to zero, unless forced by legislations to do so. It simply doesn't benefit from that, since every group and individual leaving Twitter might as well defederate it, and odds are that the upper echelon there knows it.

Instead I think that Twitter will try to associate the Fediverse with terrorists and what have you, to indirectly smear shit into its competitor Faecesbook/Threats.

[–] 520@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

This is just a guess, but I think that the likelihood of Twitter federating is almost to zero, unless forced by legislations to do so. It simply doesn’t benefit from that

That, and Musk's ego won't allow it.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago

Tides change. I think federating tomorrow is definitely off the table. Heck, even next year. But if the Fediverse balloons more and more, they may have reason to.