Quite possibly a luddite.
I think the key here is that it’s a feed managed by the user. There’s not enough commercial potential in that. As a tech company, you want to be the one curating the feed, and you want the user to believe you’re doing it in their best interest so they don’t notice how you’re making money by subtly feeding them ads.
RSS is simply too good for the contemporary internet.
I figured there are interesting people out there who don’t really blog often, but who might post something online a few times ever year and whom I’d like to stay updated on. So I started trying to collect some of these relatively inactive personal feeds.
It’s not ass noisy as following blogs or social media, which is what I like about it. The only drawback is of course that so few people maintain an RSS feed.
If a threads user is so hellbent on finding and ruining conversations over at Mastodon or whereever, it would probably be easier for them just to sign up for a Mastodon instance in the first place. I don’t think Threads federating is going to make it all that much easier for the trolls.
This makes no sense whatsoever. You could want Meta to use ActivityPub, say it’s a good thing that they use an open standard, and still say you have no interest in communicating with them and stick to services where they are defederated.
You don’t have an obligation to read every email you receive just because it’s an open standard.
There’s no logical connection between services using activitypub and you bring forced to connect to them. So I guess at least that’s a point to your free speech example.
Absolutely - if they federate and it turns out to be a problem, there’s no reason one should be more patient with Threads than with any other poorly moderated instance. But in all likelihood the slimy parts of Threads will very rarely make it to the feeds of anyone not actively looking for it.
A bunch of people are pretty disgusting on the established fediverse as well. It’s just that nobody has a way of imposing themselves in your feed.
And I don’t use Lemmy, nor will I use Threads. I use services that broadcas information with both - that’s different. I made a web site once, that doesn’t make me a Google Chrome user. I send emails with Gmail users, but I still don’t use Gmail. I just co-exist with people who do.
Yes, indeed - which is why it would be good for them if Threads federated, and they could reach their network without using a Meta service.
For some users the network is a really important part of social networks.
God forbid if Microsoft decided to use open document formats by default and to phase out docx - it would clearly be the first step of EEE!
God forbid companies use the world wide web - they’ll run it down the gutter!
The standards must be protected at all costs - may they never see mass adoption.
It’s almost - almost - as if this is what ActivityPub was designed for.
There’s something like 50 million Threads users. Chances are there’s at least a few people out there who would be happy to be able to connect with at least some of those 50 million people, without having to use Threads themselves.
As an academic, I would just be happy if I could reach my peers on Mastodon. I don’t really give a fuck which platform they choose to use - I’ve chosen mine, and that’s enough for me.
Furthermore, what’s even the point of open standards if you don’t want them to be adopted.
While Gecko should absolutely be made available for iPhone, it’s worth noting there’s nothing wrong with WebKit per se. It’s open source (forked from KHTML), servers as the base for among others the GNOME Web browser, and is not a monopoly player (outside of iPhones).
In some messed up way, Apple’s WebKit insistance has helped competition in the browser market by making sure there’s at least one popular platform where Blink is not dominating…
Well, the ones that federate with Meta will still be federated with those who don’t. So it’s really no different from what the Fediverse is already: Fragmented by design.