cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/9799372
What’s Meta up to?
-
Embrace ActivityPub, , Mastodon, and the fediverse
-
Extend ActivityPub, Mastodon, and the fediverse with a very-usable app that provides additional functionality (initially the ability to follow everybody you’re following on Instagram, and to communicate with all Threads users) that isn’t available to the rest of the fediverse – as well over time providing additional services and introducing incompatibilities and non-standard improvements to the protocol
-
Exploit ActivityPub, Mastodon, and the fediverse by utilizing them for profit – and also using them selfishly for Meta’s own ends
Since the fediverse is so much smaller than Threads, the most obvious ways of exploiting it – such as stealing market share by getting people currently in the fediverse to move to Threads – aren’t going to work. But exploitation is one of Meta’s core competences, and once you start to look at it with that lens, it’s easy to see some of the ways even their initial announcement and tiny first steps are exploiting the fediverse: making Threads feel like a more compelling platform, and reshaping regulation. Longer term, it’s a great opportunity for Meta to explore – and maybe invest in – shifting their business model to decentralized surveillance capitalism.
Try reading the article, others seem to understand the point I’m making (whether or not they agree).
It’s hard to get someone to understand that which they’re paid to not understand. Seems there’s all kinds of Facebook shills up in this thread.
Edit: oh, and would you look at that? Right out of the gate with the exploit stage in full effect .“Threads” has been an internet term for these forum discussions for as long as the internet has been around, but now zuckerfuck wants it all to himself. Now a billion upon billion different forum posts are going to inadvertently mention his stupid-ass platform.
Ok, you mean I could be getting paid to not panic about Threads? If you have a referral link, I’d greatly appreciate it!
Implying that anyone who disagrees with you must be a paid shill is not the rhetorical dunk you apparently think it is.
Everyone who disagrees must be a paid shill huh?
Have you ever heard of Hanlon’s Razor?
I do think every instance should preemptively defederate threads (I did on mine). But assuming that everyone who disagrees must be a shill, rather than just naive or uninformed… That’s some serious next level conspiracy theory.