threads not having the ability to follow back or see mentions is just incredibly brazen EEE i'm almost impressed. maybe if mastodon had an actual spec and wasn't implementation-defined by website boy we could shame them more but it doesn't so we really...
-
threads not having the ability to follow back or see mentions is just incredibly brazen EEE i'm almost impressed. maybe if mastodon had an actual spec and wasn't implementation-defined by website boy we could shame them more but it doesn't so we really can't
-
@[email protected] it was hilarious to see people’s screenshot from threads a year ago talking about how proud meta was of themselves for banging threads together in a month or so
and yet they still “can’t” do anything with the rest of fedi except for let us peer in the window, huh. -
Jonreplied to d@nny "disc@" mc² last edited by [email protected]
@[email protected] yeah it's like I said in https://privacy.thenexus.today/swf-and-the-meta-elephant/
"Meta has a well-documented track record of sabotaging interoperability initiatives with open networks (as Facebook helped Google to do with XMPP and as WhatsApp is currently doing with Matrix). So why should the Fediverse expect them to follow through on their vague promises about openness and interoperability?
To be clear, lying and malicius compliance are only the tip of the iceberg..... But even just looking at the malicious compliance and lying, it's not a question of if Meta screws over their "partners" in ActivityPub Fediverse, but when and how. They've had a good run so far milking their tiny incremental gestures of compatibility to get positive press. Once that dries up, they might well conclude that the ActivityPub Fediverse no longer helps them with what they hoped to accomplish, and turn their attention elsewhere – just like Google (and Facebook) did with XMPP. Or, who knows, maybe they'll find it more useful to manipulate and coopt their Fediverse allies into helping Meta try to weasel their way around regulations. Time will tell!"
