zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. bdcrav+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-18 21:23:53
That's a name I haven't thought of for several years.

I wonder if Fediverse, Blue Sky, etc will catch, or if it'll end up in the same boat. Threads too (yes it's backed by Meta, but G+ had Google behind it ...)

replies(2): >>mdasen+W3 >>forbid+j4
2. mdasen+W3[view] [source] 2024-01-18 21:42:32
>>bdcrav+(OP)
The reason I feel confident in the Fediverse's longevity is that it's independently hosted. If BlueSky ran out of money tomorrow and shut down its servers, BlueSky is gone. If mastodon.social ran out of money and shut down its servers, the Fediverse would continue.

There would be pain if mastodon.social failed with zero notice. People would lose access to their accounts and would need to find a new server where they'd be starting over. Some may have backed up their contacts, but most wouldn't. If mastodon.social gave a couple months notice, people could migrate to other servers. given that mastodon.social is the largest server, there would be some growing pains as other servers worked to accommodate new users, but it's possible for the Fediverse to continue.

Note, I'm not saying that the Fediverse will be incredibly popular. I'm simply noting that there's an amount of resilience. Once Ello's owners ran out of interest or money, that was the end of Ello. Even if others had a huge interest in seeing it continue, there was nothing they could do. Even if the Fediverse doesn't "catch" by your definition of catching on, it has caught on for enough people who have moved there and will remain there.

That's why I feel happier in the Fediverse. It feels like something the community controls. Sure, I don't run my own server, but I possibly could in the future and there are enough people running servers that I don't feel beholden to any one entity. It just feels like something that can stick around - even if the cool kids aren't interested. Enough of us like it and we'll keep it going even if some of us become disinterested in it.

replies(1): >>riffic+X8
3. forbid+j4[view] [source] 2024-01-18 21:43:59
>>bdcrav+(OP)
There's a couple of key differences between Google backing Google+ and Meta backing Threads.

1. Meta's entire business is social apps, and Google's is not. There are strategic differences in approach as a result. 2. Google+ was an attempt to disrupt Facebook's rise at the height of Facebook's popularity. People _liked_ FB then - so trying to get them to switch to another product was harder. Threads shipped during a time of volatility with Xitter and is poised to capture more of that audience as Xitter continues to decay.

In terms of how things will change in the space over time, Threads choice to support ActivityPub will probably mean good things for the Fediverse in general, at least in the short term (3E notwithstanding), and could ultimately serve to be the arbiter that kills BlueSky and the AT Protocol.

replies(2): >>x0x0+xl >>Zigurd+jm
◧◩
4. riffic+X8[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-18 22:05:55
>>mdasen+W3
the genie that is the Fediverse (based on interoperable and open web protocols) is impossible to place back into its bottle.
◧◩
5. x0x0+xl[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-18 23:14:08
>>forbid+j4
Additionally, Google never seemed to be able to answer why someone should use Google+ in lieu of Facebook except that it would be very nice for Google if people would.

Whereas threads has the obvious benefit of attempting to grow while Twitter is self destructing.

◧◩
6. Zigurd+jm[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-18 23:18:26
>>forbid+j4
G+ also tried (was told to?) show relevance to other Google products by becoming a universal and mandated discussion thread mechanism. It wasn't ready. Got the totally expected blowback.

In contrast Meta isn't trying to Threadify everything. The addition of ActivityPub is an experiment that should be run in Threads.

replies(1): >>jamiek+MQ
◧◩◪
7. jamiek+MQ[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-19 03:25:18
>>Zigurd+jm
Another thing is people weren't just meh about G+ but because of the 'you now must use real names across our properties, yes, including youtube' message people were actively hostile to it.
[go to top]