I used to think that there would be 1, main 'Fediverse' with all of the 'big instances' connected to each other. The recent Threads debacle has shown me otherwise.

The point of the Fediverse is that there is no one single entity, or group of entities, dominating it all.

Right now it feels like whatever the big instances do, we kind of have to go along with to be a part of anything. As the Fediverse grows, there will be more options to suit different types of users.

I think it's fine if big instances federate with Threads and it's fine if they don't. People can just join instances that align with what they want. It's not like defederating means being cut out of the Fediverse, that's not possible.

Great design. I'm eager to see how it plays out.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I agree, the original idea of the fediverse is awesome. However, I believe the big players will decide almost everything about it in the end, simply due to influence on decisions being made.

But it's fine. I'm kind of happy as long as big tech is not running it, and as long as it doesn't have ads and user tracking, and other poison.

[–] voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm kind of happy as long as big tech is not running it

Wait for it. It's coming. That's why Meta is doing this. We're in the "embrace" phase of "embrace, extend, extinguish".

I don't see how to avoid it, unless the courts step in. The only reason why we're using the World Wide Web instead of the Microsoft Wide Web is because the US sued Microsoft and won.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

FOSS 4 Life, bb!

load more comments