Threads attracts 30M users in 24 hours despite design flaws, privacy concerns | Ars Technica
Threads attracts 30M users in 24 hours despite design flaws, privacy concerns | Ars Technica
FTC requires Meta to make it easy for users to control data.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
How many of those accounts are bots?
-
How many of the humans will still be posting in 30 days?
Well, Threads has an estimated 30+ million users already. Threads will easily have more daily active users than the entirety of the Fediverse if even just 1% stick around.
Threads would have 150% the number of users in that case, and that’s assuming the app stops growing.
I’ve gotten a good amount of pushback (well reasoned, but pushback nonetheless) about my position on how we need to think of where we fit into all of this. But realistically we are tiny. ActivityPub—if it ever comes to Threads—can be easily bastardized and made proprietary by Meta unilaterally.
We’ve seen it more times than we can even remember. Microsoft did it with IE, Google is doing it with Chrome and RCS (for those who haven’t seen my other comments: no, Android RCS is not an open standard. Google closed it with proprietary layers which is why no other messaging apps are allowed to access Google’s RCS save for a few like Samsung), and even Mastodon.
That’s right: Mastodon has not adapted ActivityPub fully to standard and instead opts to go it’s own way. And now other projects are hiving off and—you guessed it—implemented Mastodon’s approach rather than the official ActivityPub standard.
At least according to ActivityPub co-creator Evan Prodromou (on the Changelog podcast episode “Into the Fediverse” on 2023-02-24 around the 10 minute mark). He isn’t putting down Mastodon at all; but it stands to show just how easily a single big player can hijack things. We got lucky that Mastodon didn’t radically pivot and integrate hostile practices.
But Meta will. We all know this. This is what capitalists do. They gain nothing by allowing competition, even if minor.
Edit: in case I wasn’t clear, I’m not attacking Mastodon. I love Mastodon. I don’t love the NDA that the creator signed with Meta. I don’t like his stances regarding Meta. I understand things do need to deviate at points, as is the nature of all software. I’m a software engineer myself (albeit not for anything related to ActivityPub or social media). It is more an example of how quickly things can go sideways with just one big player willing it into existence.
But realistically we are tiny.
Exactly - too small to be of any bother.
Agreed, to an extent. But falling into the siren song of “the goal is federation no matter what” will inevitably lead us down the road traveled many times before. The problem comes when Meta starts tweaking and exploiting. If our implementations change to maintain adequate federation with Meta—well, it is only a matter of time at that point.
I again point to RCS. That was tiny. Google still bothered, and now the only real implementation is their own because anyone with a say simply went along with it (whether directly, or via passivity).
On the other hand, we are significant enough to warrant pandering and supposed adoption. There’s no reason for Threads to use (eventually) ActivityPub.
Some have theorized that Meta glommed onto it in order to skirt EU regulations regarding gatekeepers. That could be another angle.
But I’m truly worried that, as decentralized communities and ultimately disorganized projects, one big player will swing through and take it all away in one way or another. It’s happened before.
the goal is federation no matter what
I don't think anyone is saying that should be the case. However, neither do I think we should be saying "no federation, no matter what". Meta is purely self-interested, of course, but I don't think we have any idea what it's intentions are with regard to ActivityPub
-