The thread discussed the question of why people tend to choose proprietary microblogging platfroms (i.e. Bluesky or Threads) over the free and open source microblogging platform, Mastodon.
There are some loud voices in the fediverse who don't want it to be very welcoming. Here are a couple examples:
Threads defederation - what could onboard people to the fediverse faster than a giant platform run by Facebook joining? Yes, I hate Facebook as much as everyone else here, but they're making an offramp for their users and half the fediverse wants to close that off?
Overbearing enforcement of norms - yes, it's good if people put alt text on their images and content warnings on stuff lots of people find upsetting. It's harmful to hassle people about it until they leave.
I think people who a small network with strong social norms are better off on servers that are selective about what they federate with to ensure stricter adherence to the preferences of their users. One of the great things about federated systems is that users can pick a place that's run in a way that works for them.
If threads is incorporated into the larger fediverse, sure you'll get a bump in dau, but threads will eventually dominate the user base. Then if they devide to cut ties with Lemmy sites, the fediverse basically loses 90% of engagement overnight.
Threads users are much more likely to interact with other microblog software like Mastodon than with Lemmy. It might be possible to post from Threads to Lemmy now by tagging a community much like Mastodon, but I have never seen it done. Lemmy.world does not block threads.net.
I don't think a Mastodon server attempting to attract a mainstream audience should block them though, at least not at this point. We have a chance to welcome millions of people who wouldn't have even heard of the fediverse otherwise.