TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Thoughts on Threads and ActivityPub

66 点作者 GavinAnderegg超过 1 年前

12 条评论

colinsane超过 1 年前
&gt; Google has, perhaps, the worst track record for chat clients and for killing their products in general. It’s a real shame how Jabber&#x2F;XMPP users were effectively “ghosted” by the far more numerous Google Talk userbase, but does this mean that we should ignore any efforts form big companies to support open standards forever now? Weren’t things good while everything did interoperate? Is it absolutely inevitable that Meta is going to do something terrible with ActivityPub?<p>FB messenger (back when each chat was a pseudo-window at the bottom of the FB screen, and not its own app) also supported XMPP. you can&#x27;t say (effectively) &quot;i buy the XMPP argument, but this time it&#x27;s not Google&quot; because the XMPP argument applies <i>equally well</i> to FB.
评论 #38659273 未加载
评论 #38660589 未加载
berkes超过 1 年前
I&#x27;m convinced that federating Threads offers two major benefits to Meta. And that this is why they have no incentive to EEE.<p>First, federating is a clear signal to antitrust-bodies that, no, there is no monopoly. With the EU shifting gear in this, and the US also pushing back at big-tech, there is a real &quot;danger&quot; that these companies will otherwise be forced to build interoperable social-media. Now, Meta is the first mover, and can do it their own way.<p>Secondly, by federating, you give yourself leeway to block and ban people. If you want to block, say, the POTUS, you can now say &quot;sure, but you can just set up your own instance&quot;. Where, in a siloed social media, you&#x27;re practically blocking people&#x27;s speech, with federation, you&#x27;re saying: &#x27;sure, speech whatever you want, just not on our instance&#x27;.
SturgeonsLaw超过 1 年前
Call it elitism, snobbery, parochialism or whatever you like, but I maintain that as a space on the internet becomes more and more mainstream, it gets worse. Eternal September writ large. I remember the old internet, when it was for nerds, and there were barriers of entry. It was a much better place - it was rough around the edges, sure, but it was not some corporate walled garden monetised monoculture, so the good was absolutely worth the bad.<p>There are some small vestiges of this - HN being one, and the fediverse being another. Reddit circa 10 years ago was like this, and, well - look at it now.<p>The Facebookification of the Fediverse will be the beginning of the end of that old internet holdout. It will bring the normies and the advertisers, who will file down the sharp edges and narrow the range of acceptable viewpoints until it&#x27;s just another part of the commercial borg.<p>It was nice while it lasted I guess.
评论 #38662576 未加载
etchalon超过 1 年前
Like the author, I never fully understood the EEE argument.<p>The assumption is that if Meta convinces a large section of Mastodon users to use Threads, and then makes Threads incompatible with Mastodon, Mastodon, as a network, will suffer harm.<p>But Meta clearly doesn&#x27;t need Mastodon users. They&#x27;ve built a network something like 5x larger than Mastodon in a handful of months. If anything, Mastodon needs Meta.<p>In my opinion, the worst case scenario (Threads becomes the defect Mastadon client&#x2F;author and then drops support for Mastodon) just means Mastodon will end up back where they are today. A niche social graph for a specific set of users.<p>EEE works as an argument when the target is larger than the malevolent force, but falls apart when the target is so much smaller.
评论 #38659383 未加载
评论 #38667561 未加载
评论 #38661835 未加载
SamBorick超过 1 年前
The biggest strength of the fediverse is that every instance operator can make their own decisions on this matter.
评论 #38659338 未加载
评论 #38659032 未加载
评论 #38659245 未加载
评论 #38659690 未加载
评论 #38659110 未加载
monetus超过 1 年前
Threads will be a boon to mastodon.<p>Discovering the various instances or the idea of federation via threads certainly isn&#x27;t going to hurt it. I am curious what kind of stress tests will happen with that many more people added to the network. EEE isn&#x27;t meta&#x27;s goal here though. The good does not wash out the bad, nor the bad the good, as stanis baratheon would say.
freetanga超过 1 年前
Meta is a horrible company for how is weaponizing data and manipulating consumers to make more money. I remember seeing papers published by them on how to foster “micro-depressions” on young consumers to make them more pervasive to ads. Nothing against them on engineering from me, just consider them immoral and cancerigenous.<p>Microsoft under Ballmer was the evil of EEE. Now under Nadella is slowly doing this but more subtly and elegantly. Let’s see the marriage with OpenAI involve. Their engineering mentality was quite nice until recently, let’s keep tabs on GitHub to see them evolve.<p>Google is trying to be evil, but their own internal struggle from going to Internet God to 80s Corporation (with greed and politics overshadowing the real business) makes them go around in circles.<p>Long story short: happy FB adopted ActivityPub, not going to touch them anyhow as I consider them immoral. Afraid they will try to influence the standard in the future to cripple it.
CoolestBeans超过 1 年前
I don&#x27;t think Meta will intentionally try to snuff out Mastodon but I don&#x27;t think Threads breaking from Mastodon will have it just return to its pre Threads momentum.<p>Look it just makes sense to start out connecting Threads users to a pretty active user base which creates content for Threads users. Then as Threads grows, maintaining federation with Pubiverse will have a high marginal cost relative to the shrinking piece of pie users outside of Threads is. Compatibility will get worse and worse as the Threads devs allow their federation code to rot until eventually they make a clean break to focus their resources elsewhere.<p>Meanwhile if you happen to be a poster on the Mastodon side of the fence, you&#x27;re going to have to get on Threads and start posting there to keep up with the audience you&#x27;ve gathered, it just makes sense. That network effect of posters needing to follow their audiences would hollow out a post-break Mastodon.<p>All this being said, I don&#x27;t think Mastodon instances should resist a Threads federation. Focus on a superior user experience by really trying to empathize with the average user. Don&#x27;t let yourself be relegated to power users or enthusiasts because, Threads federation or not, when push comes to shove people want to talk to people and they will go where people are.
评论 #38665459 未加载
naet超过 1 年前
Though it&#x27;s not finished by any means I think the AT Protocol has a really great future potential vs ActivityPub.<p>ActivityPub is cool, but I think long term it will be a stepping stone to something a little more like the end goals of atproto.
评论 #38659402 未加载
some_furry超过 1 年前
&gt; The Embrace, Extend, Extinguish argument also falls down at the last point for me: Extinguish. This is a tremendous amount of effort that Meta is undertaking to try and… what? Stop the fediverse from growing? Defeat Mastodon, Meta’s mighty competitor?<p>Well, if the author had actually cited the people whose arguments they&#x27;re dismissing, the answer to these questions would be clear.<p>Here&#x27;s one.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;emacs.ch&#x2F;@ramin_hal9001&#x2F;111579818136072605" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;emacs.ch&#x2F;@ramin_hal9001&#x2F;111579818136072605</a><p>-----<p>In case of the article being edited after I leave this comment, here&#x27;s an archive snapshot of what I&#x27;m responding to: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20231215205458&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;anderegg.ca&#x2F;2023&#x2F;12&#x2F;15&#x2F;the-threads-invasion" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20231215205458&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;anderegg....</a>
评论 #38659397 未加载
flaburgan超过 1 年前
I think the OP and most of the commenters here are missing the point. Meta threat is not about killing AP or Mastodon. It&#x27;s about mining your data and spying on you. That AP is an open standard doesn&#x27;t change anything. It&#x27;s exactly like SMTP and gmail. Sure, gmail did not kill the emails, they are still here, it&#x27;s still decentralized. But eh, when you&#x27;re sending an email with vacations pictures to your friend, it&#x27;s enough that a single one of them is using gmail for Google to have everything. The content, the addresses, build a social graph of everyone, and mine, mine, mine the data to spread more ads or share it with the governments or... Threads is the exact same threat. If only one of my friend is using it, everything that I write will be received and processed by Meta. And I don&#x27;t want that. Until now, I was able to tell to my non tech friends, come on my mastodon server, and I knew we would have privacy. Now I will have to explain to everyone that if they don&#x27;t want their data to be analyzed, they should not add a contact from Thread. The fediverse was a safe space. Now we have to constantly be on guard again, and this exhausting.
评论 #38659955 未加载
评论 #38667517 未加载
nunez超过 1 年前
&gt; Google then used this for its chat service, but then stopped interoperating with standard Jabber&#x2F;XMPP clients. This left a lot of people in the lurch, and that’s terrible.<p>I mean, yeah, that&#x27;s basically the thing we&#x27;re afraid of!