[HN Gopher] Threads Enables Fediverse Replies
___________________________________________________________________
Threads Enables Fediverse Replies
Author : mkarliner
Score : 169 points
Date : 2024-08-29 12:43 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.karliner.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.karliner.net)
| lolinder wrote:
| > 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.
| mkarliner wrote:
| 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.
| lolinder wrote:
| > And an open system defuses that significantly.
|
| I'm not sure that it has as much of an impact as you think it
| does. Threads would not be a significant target for regulator
| action regardless of openness--it doesn't have enough share
| of the market to be interesting. Meanwhile, the openness of
| Threads does nothing to alleviate the concerns of their
| dominance in every non-microblogging social media category.
| mkarliner wrote:
| Meta could link Threads and Instagram in a heartbeat if
| they chose, and were't scared of the consequences. Threads
| is small fry at the moment, but a very good test and
| precursor to making the same play across the other
| properties. I respect your opinion BTW, I don't like flame
| wars. :-)
|
| It's worth remembering that the Fediverse is not just
| microblogging, there are platforms for pretty much every
| kind of social media play.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Threads would not be a significant target for regulator
| action regardless of openness--it doesn't have enough share
| of the market to be interesting
|
| Zuckerberg thinks Threads could be Meta's next billion-
| plus-user product.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > 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.
| lolinder wrote:
| Yeah, that also works as an explanation. Same principle--
| defend yourself by going on the offensive.
|
| There's a reason why Threads was only conceptualized after
| Musk acquired Twitter and started talking about building an
| everything app. Pre-Musk Twitter was very content with its
| market and so wasn't a threat to anyone else. Musk's X was a
| different story (if he could execute on it, which at the time
| seemed more likely than it does now).
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| I may be wrong but I remember it almost exactly the
| opposite i.e. that Musk was clearly flailing with Twitter
| and Meta saw that as an opportunity to move into Twitter's
| market, which they would have struggled to do with
| competent management at Twitter.
| nordsieck wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| I don't think Meta would have been so keen to launch a
| competitor if people weren't so desperate to leave x (nee
| twitter) for another platform.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Yea, lol, Musk's twitter was never, ever a clear threat
| to any competitor and Zuck smelled blood in the water.
| Elon fanboism has spun it the other way for obvious
| reasons.
| sangnoir wrote:
| I'll also note that Twitter was pretty open and had lots
| of goodwill, which would have made competing against it
| really hard.
|
| Twitter getting rid of 3rd party clients (pre-Musk), and
| shutting down API access (post-Musk) burned a lot of
| goodwill, leading to large spikes of growth of the
| Fediverse, and creating a window of opportunity for a
| microblogging service from Meta.
| theptip wrote:
| "Commoditize your complements" is a related point.
|
| Content is the input to the Meta ad engine. You can generate
| it on-platform, or you can bring it in from elsewhere if it
| is commoditized. (And commoditizing your complements often
| looks like breaking down your competitors' moats.)
|
| I don't think it's as cynical as a "salt the earth" strategy
| though, surely they (plan to) make profit from Threads and
| LLaMa regardless of what their competitors do? Threads users
| will drive ad revenue, Llama (theoretically, eventually)
| increases the quality bar for content, driving their main
| flywheel.
| Hoasi wrote:
| If Mark went scorched earth on AI, you can bet it is not for
| the sake of generosity.
| solarkraft wrote:
| > 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.
| cooljacob204 wrote:
| They have been doing a lot of open source work in the frontend
| world for a while. Biggest example is React.
| lolinder wrote:
| Yes, there's a reason I specified "product openness". React
| isn't a product and never could have been, so while I'm
| grateful to them for releasing it open source it doesn't
| really represent the same kind of play as Threads or Llama.
| breezeTrowel wrote:
| How is Llama a product? It's more like React, PyTorch,
| GraphQL, etc.
| dagmx wrote:
| Meta's AI offerings are products. They're featured in
| Instagram, Facebook and Messenger.
|
| They're part of the Rayban partnership. Imho definitely a
| product.
| breezeTrowel wrote:
| Yes and Facebook uses React and GraphQL. Meta AI uses
| PyTorch. Does that make them all products?
| dagmx wrote:
| No, because they're not exposed to users as features that
| they interact with. From a user perspective, they don't
| ever see if it was made using those tools. They see the
| AI front and center.
|
| I feel like thats a pretty strong distinction.
| breezeTrowel wrote:
| They see AI features front and center. They dont see the
| backend (which may or may not be running Llama). Same
| goes for React although, with React, the framework is
| what the end user directly interacts with. So, by that
| logic, React is more of a product than Llama.
| dagmx wrote:
| Let me flip this around.
|
| If you are a user, what feature is react giving you? Pre
| and post react, Facebook is largely the same to a user.
|
| Pre and post graphql, Facebook is also the same.
|
| To the user, neither of those are expressed as features.
|
| Llama / Meta AI is a feature that changes how a user
| interacts with the system. When it was added, it's
| noticeable. If it were to be taken away it would be
| noticeable. Nobody was boycotting react.
|
| That is the difference between an implementation detail
| and a product/feature.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| 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.
| mikae1 wrote:
| 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
| lolinder wrote:
| I don't see "Threads" on the list of "Core platform
| services", and I see no evidence of the services that are so
| designated becoming part of the fediverse.
| mikae1 wrote:
| Meta is a gatekeeper, it applies to their services. This
| (or an alternative) will have to be rolled out to
| Instagram. I guess now the smaller Threads is testing
| ground.
| theanonymousone wrote:
| Still not in Europe?
| red_trumpet wrote:
| Care to elaborate? It looks like Threads is available in
| Europe.
| theanonymousone wrote:
| In Switzerland,I don't see the setting to ensble Fediverse
| for my Threads account. Also I cannot find
| @myusername@threads.net in Mastodon.
| hn1986 wrote:
| These fediverse changes in Threads are in Europe but not in the
| EU yet. Threads itself is available worldwide, including the
| EU.
| mkarliner wrote:
| Yes, I'm in the UK, works here. I'd give up Threads to be
| back in the EU :-)
| draxil wrote:
| OFC most of the fediverse has blocked threads already.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| And for a very good reason
| pixxel wrote:
| Seems reasonable. You stay in the Zuckerberg ecosystem and
| we'll cut off its parasitic tentacles.
| kmfrk wrote:
| Tumblr's been talking about the move for ages, but does anyone
| knoe what progress is being made towards it?
| sunaookami wrote:
| 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...
| jmyeet wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The entire mobile phone network?
| loeg wrote:
| That predates email and is ... not really a counterpoint to
| federation sucking for end-users? There's so much
| spam/phishing and somehow it's no one's legal responsibility.
| yborg wrote:
| Yeah that happens now on Xitter, that doesn't seem to be a
| federation problem.
| wazoox wrote:
| "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish".
| crowcroft wrote:
| 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.
| mkarliner wrote:
| 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.
| crowcroft wrote:
| I would go as far as to say they don't really want it to be
| popular, but I would love to see enough integration for there
| to be at least some attempt at competition.
| xyst wrote:
| 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"
| klysm wrote:
| Embrace extend extinguish ?
| dahauns wrote:
| Entice, Entrench, Enshittify.
| takeda wrote:
| Exactly https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-
| decentralised-netwo...
| nunobrito wrote:
| 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.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > 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.
| theptip wrote:
| > 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.
| takeda wrote:
| The goal is basically repeating what Google did with
| XMPP/Jabber: https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-
| decentralised-netwo...
| sangnoir wrote:
| Ironically, Facebook was also involved with Google
| defederating from XMPP, according to an explanation I read
| many years ago (IIRC, from Larry Page when he was CEO). FB
| messenger could connect to Google Talk users, but not the
| other way around - so Google wasn't pleased about freely
| exporting users' "social graph"[1] to Facebook, and getting
| nothing in return.
|
| 1. The "social graph" was the new hotness then, everybody had
| to have it, just like AI now. An exec at Google convinced the
| company that Facebook was an existential threat, leading to
| some very questionable decisions bourne of a self-induced
| siege-mentality.
| samatman wrote:
| It remains baffling and sad that Google's first response to
| this was to murder their best social graph in cold blood.
| Between giving Reader the axe, and the real names fiasco on
| Google+, the company has destroyed the necessary trust to
| ever operate a social graph worth having.
|
| Please don't tell me that YouTube is a social graph, by the
| way. Words should mean something. If YouTube were a social
| graph, I'd see videos from the accounts I follow.
| renewiltord wrote:
| > _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.
| nunobrito wrote:
| Just wait until they discover NOSTR.
| greentea23 wrote:
| 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
| nunobrito wrote:
| I've been around BBS, web forums and social networks for
| almost 30 years now.
|
| Indeed NOSTR is completely fresh air and mindblowing. My
| account just works across any clients, doesn't need even need
| Internet nor electricity. I can print my note on a piece of
| paper and people can still verify that this is a verifiable
| text from me.
|
| Really in love with the tech, didn't had this feeling for
| quite a while.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| As an advocate for peace in Gaza the moderation has been
| anything but light. Can't even use the word zionist on there.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Yea, this is a platform-wide thing and across most other
| platforms as well - I meant in terms of like, forcing you to
| edit posts with "forbidden" keywords like they love to do on
| IG (but never tell you exactly what you said wrong), tone
| policing, hiding comments between users arguing with each
| other, etc.
| bcye wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| _(tries to find keystroke for Fediverse symbol)_
|
| ***
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41327567
| bee_rider wrote:
| Spiky therefore symbol?
| Zefiroj wrote:
| star-triforce
| proactivesvcs wrote:
| _(tried to use Compose key, had to find out how to add Compose
| sequences)_
|
| ***
| idatum wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-29 23:02 UTC)