Recent searches
Search options
Returning to #Fediverse after a few years, I see there's a lot more activity here now.
Looks like #Threads really did add fedi support, and so did #Flipboard ??? Both have 100M+ MAU.
#Wordpress also added fedi support, and #Tumblr seems to be working on it.
Even #GitLab is working on adding fedi support for cross-instance issue tracking and merge requests.
Now it really does look to me like the age of centralized social networks is ending, and decentralized is likely here to stay.
@dragon0 well...threads *kinda* added AP support. We can't mention them unless we're replying to a post that already exists there, they can't mention or reply to us directly, and each user has to enable it to be able to see our replies and like them. They hide that option behind 3 menus and never tell you it's there.
So yeah, but only if the people you want to follow are aware of the Fediverse and have it turned on, otherwise no, not really...
Flipboard, on the other hand, is federating accounts in batches. It definitely seems like the more correct way.
@BeAware Yeah, but even trying to add AP support is a heck of a lot of effort on threads's part from an engineering perspective, for something that they don't really have a business reason to do.
It means that management is on board enough to be dedicating enough resources to it to have some user-visible results.
It doesn't yet mean that they're going to continue with it, but it shows they're somewhat serious about it as an option.
@dragon0 agree to disagree.
One person added it to a corporation platform he doesn't even work for, in less time than it's taking them, a multi billion dollar conglomerate. BridgyFed, the bridge to BlueSky that was made by one person, was announced in January, then live and almost fully featured in May.
There's not an excuse anyone can come up with that would convince me that's not suspicious.
If they fully federate eventually, stop hiding it, and become a supporting member of the Fediverse instead of "you can see us, but we can't see you" nonsense, I'll gladly eat my words. However, their track record and all this suspicious behavior makes me feel I won't have to do that.
@BeAware Yeah, Meta aren't very high on the trustworthiness list, that's for sure. I'm just saying, the issue with these things in larger orgs often has more to do with red tape than actual tech.
One guy bridged BlueSky by themself, that's awesome. But they had full choice over their time. Us pros often don't. We have to do what mgmt decides is important, not what we want.
At my job, I have to do more than I have time for, and a lot is spent talking to the boss so we agree on priority.
@dragon0 right...that is true. That is also a reason it cannot be trusted...
When executives are in the middle of a developer and a feature, it's never a good thing and almost always the case with these things.
Also, sometimes but not always, the reason for the executives being in the middle is so they can enshittify the feature to it's lowest potential.
They've given nobody reason to believe this isn't the case here.
I'm sure if Adam Mosseri didn't get paid millions per year to do exactly what they say, when they say it, exactly how they say it to be done, and instead had freedom to do what he felt was right, he might do the right thing.
However, thinking in hypotheticals is pretty pointless. So...yeah, either on purpose or accidentally, you made the point.