What Meta’s Fediverse Plans Mean for Threads Users (www.wired.com)

submitted 9 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Meta is treading carefully, doing a phased implementation while continuing conversations with Fediverse leaders. This will give the company more time to iron out some of the integration kinks. “Do we adapt the protocol to be able to support this?” Lambert asks. “Or do we try to do some kind of interesting, unique implementation?” For example, Threads supports audio posts, a feature not currently supported within ActivityPub, so Meta is experimenting with “federating” a text transcription of the original post instead of the audio version.

It was never a good idea federating with Threads

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

right this is the 'feature envy' argument

ha a blog post, ok. even the blog post admits it

While XMPP still exist and is a very active community

every instance of xmpp folded to google because it "got most of user base to migrate"

if the fediverse cant actually compete content and feature wise across 10s of thousands of very different services/experiences built on AP, (unlike XMPP), we deserve to die.

the world is a different place than it was . how many people do you know use gtalk? zero? its zero. xmpp? STILL A THING YOU CAN USE. google didnt kill shit. the market at the time seriously minimized its use, cuz everyone was lazy and not running their own server-server products.

back today.

do you have any evidence of Meta modifying the AP protocol? can you point at their actual ability to modify the protocol? can you tell me how an instance that drops all nonstandard AP traffic is going to suffer from Meta attempting it?