• bitwolf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    11 months ago

    Here’s an example I can see happening.

    Threads will want to implement post reactions to maintain parity with Facebook. Threads expands the ActivityPub spec to include reactions.

    Now, every other instance will not be compatible with reactions. Users complain they cannot see reactions.

    Admins have two choices now:

    • Refuse to implement reactions because they are not part of the spec. Users leave and join threads.

    • ActivityPub adds reactions to the standard, all instances must now support reactions. Meta has now started dictating the spec.

    I feel the XMP fears do have some sentiment, and it’s really a matter of how the broad username interprets these issues (including the Thread users which would be family and friends).

    • atocci@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t think so. There are tons of ActivityPub implementations out there already that don’t even support all parts of the official spec (Lemmy can’t display attached images, for example). There are also implementations that have tacked on additional functionality beyond the official spec (again, Lemmy’s downvotes).

      It’s a very flexible protocol that allows developers to pick and choose what features they want to implement in their services.

      • yukijoou@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        There are tons of ActivityPub implementations out there already

        but none are widely used by such a massive amount of people as threads, and especially people who don’t understand/care about spec compliance or even how federation works

        honestly, i think in the best scenario, threads will create their own activitypub “fork”, and most instances won’t want to follow it, forcing the people who were on non-threads instances to chose between going to threads to keep in touch with their threads mutuals, or staying on non-threads instances and no longer having a reliable way of keeping in touch with those people.

        worst case would be instances following what meta does and making them the spec dictators pretty much, the spec would become closed source and all other fedi implementations would lag behind in features compared to threads, and they can at any point change the spec and break other instances.

        i think the point of defederating with threads isn’t just the defederation, but is about sending a message that we don’t want to play their game, we want to keep doing our things our ways. if they want to interract with the fediverse, they’ll have to play by our rules, we don’t want to follow theirs

        • atocci@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          There is an assumption that any changes or additions Threads may make to their implementation of ActivityPub beyond the official spec will break compatibility with other instances. It won’t though, that’s the point I was trying to make above.

          Any additions they may want to make can absolutly be added on top of the existing official spec without breaking compatibility. Lemmy has downvotes but can still read comments and posts by Mastodon users. Mastodon users can post to Lemmy communities. You can see Pixelfed pictures on Kbin. Kbin posts can be read on Misskey. Misskey posts are visible on Mastodon.

          All of these services have features that don’t exist elsewhere, built outside of the existing spec, but the core content is all interoperable. Anything Threads may want to add can be done without destroying spec compatibility. Sure, they could still make a change that intentionally breaks compatibility, but why would they? Theres nothing in it for them. No one who’s here is going to leave just because the Threads users are gone. The Threads users are already absent and we’re all still here.

          • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Sure, they could still make a change that intentionally breaks compatibility, but why would they?

            This is the kind of naivety that gets us deepthroated.

            If they’re “definitely not going to” then they don’t need the power to, yes? They should agree to our terms.

            No one who’s here is going to leave just because the Threads users are gone.

            I’m only here, specifically here, because communities I liked on Reddit pulled me. Granted, I like it here, but no platform is worth more than its content. If people get used to threads and threads leaves, people will leave with threads.

      • bitwolf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Ah, so kind of like how one would filter out unwanted messages on a Kafka topic? Makes sense

      • Exocrinous@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, that’s great when it’s a coalition of roughly equal platforms. What happens when a platform thousands of times the size of the others starts making demands?

        • atocci@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t see why the size of the user-base matters here. Why would Lemmy’s developers feel the need to implement these hypothetical reactions just because Threads does? Why would Mastodon? They’re not making demands, they’d be making changes just like everyone else. Everyone else could choose to add support for reactions or not. Things would still function without them.