I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of us are here to avoid another corporate takeover of our preferred platforms. It would seem to me to be a tad irresponsible to allow Facebook into our space with open arms, allowing them to hoover up our data. I would love to keep using Lemmy.world, but will happily change instances if need be, and I feel many share that sentiment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rglullis@communick.news 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do they want us to let them federate so that their users can use Threads as a stepping stone out of the walled gardens?

[–] lazerCovenant@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why would that happen?

People who used Google Talk didn't use it as a stepping stone to XMPP. They stayed on Google Talk.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 3 points 11 months ago

Google was not charging people to talk on their network, and they didn't make it harder to reach someone once they got it. So there was no reason for people to jump out. Facebook, on the other hand...

When the internet was in its infancy, companies and small businesses first established their online presence by getting a aol.com or hotmail.com. Running your own email or website was still expensive and not something easy to do. Today, having "your own" social media and being in control of your brand is almost as easy as having your website and your domain. I am not saying that everyone will jump out of Threads, but if Threads ever gets successful enough to replace Twitter and if we don't shut them out of the Fediverse before it happens, at least there will be an opportunity for small businesses/media orgs/influencers that want to keep reaching their audiences (like they do today on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube/etc) and also want to take control of their own presence.