this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
1021 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37735 readers
45 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The exchange is about Meta's upcoming ActivityPub-enabled network Threads. Meta is calling for a meeting, his response is priceless!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Silviecat44@vlemmy.net 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

You don't have to use it though?

[–] KeavesSharpi@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No, of course not. You didn't have to use Google chat either, but here we are. I never used it but ICQ is still dead. My point is that the billion dollar companies have more power than just making instances. Once their instances have features that the rest of the fediverse doesn't, people will be motivated to use their version instead because "it's more convenient and I can talk to my friends."

[–] Silviecat44@vlemmy.net 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So your complaint is that you don't want them to do it better?

[–] longshaden 7 points 1 year ago

It's not that they might do something better.

It's that they have a history of encouraging the competition to adopt an open standard (to gain the active users), and then purposely scuttling the standard in order to sink the competition (and leave the users with no functioning alternative).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)