Threads Enables Fediverse Replies

[lolinder]

> Because I believe that Meta as a whole is moving to an open systems approach, not because Mark Zuckerberg is a nice guy, but because he is smart enough to go open before he is forced to by regulators, (or broken up).

I think it's both more than that and less than that. Unless I missed some news, Meta's newfound love for product openness has only really manifested in Llama and Threads—I haven't seen any evidence of shifts in their core products.

I think what's happened is that in both cases Meta knows that they don't really stand a chance of actually unseating the big players in that segment on their own, but that Meta can make a dent in their profit margins if they can dilute the value of owning that segment. Llama is squarely targeted at preventing anyone from owning AI. I think Threads is doing the same thing with microblogging. If Meta can't own a segment they're going to make darn sure that no one else can own it and use their profits from it to push Meta out of their core.

If it also makes the company look more palatable to regulators, that's a nice side effect, but I'm not sure it would work as the primary goal.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

> If Meta can't own a segment they're going to make darn sure that no one else can own it and use their profits from it to push Meta out of their core.

I think it's more about trying to keep your competitors busy defending their moat - so that they don't go on the offense and attack your moat.

[mikae1]

He’s already forced to by regulators[1]. That’s the reason he did this. No love involved, rest assured.

[1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en

[solarkraft]

> Meta's newfound love for product openness has only really manifested in Llama and Threads

They’re also paying lip service to openness by spinning off their VR OS. Of course that doesn’t mean it’ll become any less proprietary, only available on more hardware.

It’s smart to join up with others when you’re the underdog. I think that’s all they’re doing.

[mkarliner]

Well, personally I think that Meta is taking the threat of regulator action very seriously. You only have to look at how Google and Apple are in trouble.

Owning WhatsApp, Threads and Instagram makes them a big target for breakup. And an open system defuses that significantly.

[tomjen3]

You are not wrong, but I also think there is another part at play here: Facebook started out quite open and then gradually became closed (just like reddit and twitter).

This is a new product, so they start out open and then slowly close down as they acquire marketshare.

[cooljacob204]

They have been doing a lot of open source work in the frontend world for a while. Biggest example is React.

[JohnMakin]

I think this is great. I've been using threads for 6 months, and while I was never a prolific twitter user - I thought it sucked even before the elon purchase, now, it's entirely unusable to me (and I've tried) - I do like its interface, a seemingly "light" (by meta standards) approach to moderation, and now a step in this direction I think is a really good thing.

As to the "why" I think it's fairly obvious. If they integrate with everything, they'll eventually become the defacto platform and/or steer users and engagement to their other platforms with less friction.

[downWidOutaFite]

As an advocate for peace in Gaza the moderation has been anything but light. Can't even use the word zionist on there.

[ChrisArchitect]

(tries to find keystroke for Fediverse symbol)

⁂

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41327567

[renewiltord]

> not because Mark Zuckerberg is a nice guy

Mark Z was clear on Dwarkesh's podcast that when he has things open he does so because he thinks it will benefit Meta and he explicitly says it's not altruistic and that if it stops being useful he'll stop making things open.

[jmyeet]

I've been intrigued by Threads since it launched last year. Succeeding where there's a competitor as entrenched as Twitter is nigh on impossible. The network effect is massive.

But of course there are chinks in TWitter's armor, specifically the whole blue check debacle and that Twitter itself is rapidly becoming 4chan (or even 8chan) and advertisers are understandably fleeing.

Still, the chance of success isn't great. Launching it under the iG brand was probably a good idea, better than under Facebook at least.

Still, when it comes to open source and integration with third-parties I keep thinking of the quote "open source is for losers" (that might come from this [1]), meaning all but the dominant player embrace interoperability and open source in a desperate attempt to topple the dominant player.

I have no idea what usage looks like but I'm glad they haven't given up. I know Google would've canceled it by now (and probably replaced it with something that looks kinda similar, has a different name/branding but no compatibility with the old thing, if chat apps are anything to go by).

I still say federation is something tech people care about but offers nothing of tangible value to end users. There hasn't been a successful federated technology since email. For a reason.

[1]: https://siliconangle.com/2014/05/29/only-loser-vendors-are-t...

[mkarliner]

The entire mobile phone network?

[bcye]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

[draxil]

OFC most of the fediverse has blocked threads already.

[jaredcwhite]

Not sure where you're coming up with that. I'm aware of the "Fedipact" but I'd guess it comprises a fairly small percentage of users, and some users have taken steps to leave instances which block Threads.

[pixxel]

Seems reasonable. You stay in the Zuckerberg ecosystem and we’ll cut off its parasitic tentacles.

[bitcharmer]

And for a very good reason

[xyst]

What's the true goal here? Given the decentralized aspect of the fediverse, facebook won't be able to sell ad space here.

Is threads hoping to become "the" instance in the fediverse? Then they can impose their will across the rest of the fediverse.

threads: "oh, you have a single user instance and want to federate with us? Pay us $500 per user/year, and use our preferred server which allows us to sell ad space on your server"

[nunobrito]

Algorithms.

Right now fediverse is growing and has very honest algorithms. Once Meta is on the scene, their "decentralized" timeline will look more enticing than others. It will be captivating and you'll prefer to hangout on their server with all nice extensions that just work there. With time, +90% of users won't bother looking on small isolated islands and you'll have facebook 2.0 in place.

Anyways, it is a fair fight. Meta coming to fediverse already means that things on this side are interesting.

[takeda]

The goal is basically repeating what Google did with XMPP/Jabber: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-netwo...

[theptip]

> facebook won't be able to sell ad space here

Why not? The Threads client will run ads. If users prefer the experience (integration to other Meta products, QoL, etc.) then they will use it and watch the ads. If they prefer other clients they will use those.

[nordsieck]

> Is threads hoping to become "the" instance in the fediverse?

Probably

> Then they can impose their will across the rest of the fediverse.

Nah. The play at that point would be to just discontinue support for federation and lock all their users inside the new walled garden.

[klysm]

Embrace extend extinguish ?

[kmfrk]

Tumblr's been talking about the move for ages, but does anyone knoe what progress is being made towards it?

[sunaookami]

I guess they want to finish the transition to WordPress first, since WordPress also has an ActivityPub plugin https://automattic.com/2024/08/27/shipping-tumblr-and-wordpr...

[idatum]

If I understand Threads adoption, it is quite large compared to Mastodon. Will Mastodon be able to handle the load if Threads -- a commercial entity -- is not blocked?

I'm holding off on making the cynical conclusion about Threads' motivations.

[crowcroft]

Would love to know how many people on threads interact with the fediverse beyond threads.

I know it’s still early and features are being built out, but my guess is the number is close to 0.

[jaredcwhite]

There's lots of Fediverse interaction on Threads. It's a little tricky still because you can follow Threads users from other instances but you can't follow accounts on other instances from Threads. That being said, I see lots of people (myself included) boosting, liking, and even commenting on Threads content from elsewhere in the Fediverse. And now that Threads has just started to publicly show fedi comments on Threads (not just to the OP), we'll get a better sense of engagement on any given post.

[mkarliner]

Again, not really the point. So long as Meta can say their platforms are open, they have a bulwark against regulators and/or being broken up. It really doesn't matter to them if it's popular or not.

[theanonymousone]

Still not in Europe?

[hn1986]

These fediverse changes in Threads are in Europe but not in the EU yet. Threads itself is available worldwide, including the EU.

[red_trumpet]

Care to elaborate? It looks like Threads is available in Europe.

[wazoox]

"Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish".

[nunobrito]

Just wait until they discover NOSTR.

[greentea23]

Nostr makes so much more sense to me than the fediverse because your account is not bound to a particular server, so if your admin gets bored you can simply use other relays or host your own instead of being kicked off. And with this you get pretty significant fediverse interop: https://gitlab.com/soapbox-pub/mostr

[jensensbutton]

How is that your takeaway? Seems like the opposite of what's being said.

[empath75]

They're taking it slow at least in part because there were concerns about threads traffic overwhelming mastodon servers.