Back

@johnebs Yup. Really seems Eugen has been bought, or he's not a good critical thinker.

@ricardoharvin Nah, he’s good. His just pushing what he believes. I just don't think Threds will be joining the Fediverse anytime soon.

(Hope I'm wrong)

@johnebs I strongly disagree with what he believes.

Scorpion and the frog.

@ricardoharvin In Federating with Threads?

I don't necessarily have a hard stance either way. I, however, do believe in an open ActivityPub. If Meta’s Threads follow the spec, then I have absolutely no problem with them joining the Fediverse.

@johnebs Much harm can be and is done already within the spec.

That's why the ability to block instances is built-in to the spec.

Your nonchalant, uncritical stance is problematic and seems extremely privileged, given the full context of this debate.

@ricardoharvin Exactly, the spec already provides a solution to the problem. If the server becomes problematic it can and will be blocked.

Why with the rudnes? I can't have a critical stance on something that does not exist and merely on the assumption that it could be.

Could you explain the debate? I would love to read your point of view.

From my point of view I see none. The whole point of the Fediverse is to be open and federated. Not allowing a compliant server to join goes against it.

@ricardoharvin And one more thing I forgot. In the end, it's not up to any one individual to allow a server to join the fediverse. If the server is compliant, it will simply be accessible.

Just like email, I can make my own server without asking for permission from anyone. If my server is compliant it just works.

What I do not want is any special consideration given to ‘Threads’. If they want to join, they must adhere to the spec. Hence the reason why I don't think they will ever join.