Feyter
And I’m on the other side thinking I don’t see any reason to defederate threads just because it is run by Meta. We always can change our minds later.
I think we should see threads just as another instance of a new service. If we see that this instance is not playing well we defederate them. So same rules applied to all.
There are still good people on Facebook/Instagram how just never heard about Lemmy, mastodon and the Fendiverse. And even if Threads or other meta platforms will implement activity pup but no real Fendiverse services will allow federation with them those people will still never get in touch with us because they never interact with us.
Just knowing about activity pup exists will not change this. Most of those people don’t have a tech background like we have and are therefore less interested in finding out what that stuff is. They will probably assume that this is some meta think to connect to other services of Meta.
I say letting federation open so people can see and find stuff from the Fedivers in meta Services and give people so maybe even the possibility to move from threads to mastodon (or Lemmy although I think this is less comparable to any meta service) will put much more pressure on meta then it will put on us.
If we defederate a few months after (because of any valid reason) this we’ll be seen by much more people even on the meta side and the impact of this will be much greater. So meta will be willing to make fedivers happy (or at least less angry?). This gives the power back to us, the people. They will care about us because they are depending on us, at least to an extent. That’s what the fedivers was created for I thought.
Actually I read it. I just don’t find it true what was written in the second article.
XMPP and the existing Fendiverse is a completely different situation. Why should the Fedivers loos anything by federating with meta? How should that work? The worst case scenario if we federate with meta is that we go back to where we are now.
The panic that is correctly happening because of all this is much worst then what ever meta could do. IMHO
Because I don’t see issues there that needs to be addressed. Maybe I missed it or just don’t understand it.
The first one is an article from Eugan (Gargron) why meta will not be able to push you Adds or get your personal network data even if an mastodon instance is federating with them.
The second is a (very opiniated and polarizing) how evil companies “killed” open social technologies in the past… Despite the fact that XMPP is not dead. So I really don’t get what should be the problems after all.
EDIT: So many spelling errors in there… I’m sorry for that.
Actually mastodon is the more viable option for journalist, because you’re not depending on the good will of a company (or some rich people in control of it) to not block you or restrict where you can be seen and where not.
It’s just that so many people don’t care about this.
I’m a little bit confused? What would Vulkan have to do with the CPU? Isn’t the GPU the important part here?
Design your game so that people don’t need to strain themselves or do repetitive actions.
Say that to the clash of clan/slot machine games
Cool that it works but why would one do such a thing.
I assume you could render 3D stuff over a 2D viewport? Not really understood your setup maybe this is exactly what you’re doing.
Plus this refusal to allowing Chats to Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger now that EU forced meta to open this up…
I know the devs are not happy about meta tracking everything on their end but why can’t this be a users choice to enable communication with no-signal servers as well?
Can someone explain in short what problem people had about Omegle?
Was it that you can say things (and show things) there to a random person without any good possibility to trace it back to you because it’s anonymous and more “temporary” then something like Lemmy for example?
Or was it just a witch hunt without any real reasonable structure?
