Aside from the “moral” argument, can someone ELI5 what harm can a federated threads.net do on other users (like me) and/or instances?
Aside from the “moral” argument, can someone ELI5 what harm can a federated threads.net do on other users (like me) and/or instances?
Dark side and far side of the Moon are equivalent terms.
They probably want to monetize on podcasts too, in the same way they do on videos and music. At the moment, Google Podcast is completely free and ad-free.
The bar is pretty low.
I don’t think so, because forcing users to post means shitposting.
I can understand. After the initial excitement, the content is lacuster and scarse compared to reddit (due to lack of large userbase)
And what’s the way to reinstate those communities? They might have very valuable names.
Up to a point. I played Cuphead and it was too hard and gave in.
Agree, and I think hashtags (or similar) are very important unless you are literally just interested in the current toots only, or you check Mastodon every minute.
Most are twitter mirroring bots, which means it’s OK to follow but there will not be much engagement.
It’s not just that: it is made worse by the fact that, being “free”, resources are limited. For example, Lemmy.world has been experiencing several hiccups and it’s bloody slow at the moment. I get it, it runs on small servers. But the QoS is bad nevertheless; how can you expect the average Joe coming from Reddit to stay here?
I got a number of answers that sound very weak to me, and basically point to a “fail” of the fediverse in its own nature if threads joins. Kind of disappointing.
To me, the key idea of the fediverse is that it’s federated and should work as a whole, no matter who joins. Most of the answers below support the opposite. They are basically saying that the fediverse should stay within the “fediverse”, which is exactly what non-federated social media are doing. Meh.