Meta is treading carefully, doing a phased implementation while continuing conversations with Fediverse leaders. This will give the company more time to iron out some of the integration kinks. “Do we adapt the protocol to be able to support this?” Lambert asks. “Or do we try to do some kind of interesting, unique implementation?” For example, Threads supports audio posts, a feature not currently supported within ActivityPub, so Meta is experimenting with “federating” a text transcription of the original post instead of the audio version.

It was never a good idea federating with Threads

  • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    No the next step is saying that text transcription didn’t worked like they wanted so we need to change the AP to allow what the majority wants(spoiler: they are the majority)

        • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          right this is the ‘feature envy’ argument

          ha a blog post, ok. even the blog post admits it

          While XMPP still exist and is a very active community

          every instance of xmpp folded to google because it “got most of user base to migrate”

          if the fediverse cant actually compete content and feature wise across 10s of thousands of very different services/experiences built on AP, (unlike XMPP), we deserve to die.

          the world is a different place than it was . how many people do you know use gtalk? zero? its zero. xmpp? STILL A THING YOU CAN USE. google didnt kill shit. the market at the time seriously minimized its use, cuz everyone was lazy and not running their own server-server products.

          back today.

          do you have any evidence of Meta modifying the AP protocol? can you point at their actual ability to modify the protocol? can you tell me how an instance that drops all nonstandard AP traffic is going to suffer from Meta attempting it?

      • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m just joking, I don’t think they can make a change unilaterally easily.

          • Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s far worse. They’re making improvements only on their side. The protocol everyone uses will lack the features their protocol offers. In other words, their side of the garden is now greener than ours, and one day, their side will be so majestic and beautiful compared to ours that almost nobody will want to visit it anymore, and like a flame without fuel, the Fediverse will Extinguish on its own.

            • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Ha… no.

              As I said before, their instance and it’s bells and whistles are irrelevant to my instance. Me and my instance only care about The ap protocol. I have no reason to fear their instance as long as it’s pumping out the standard protocol. Anything not standard gets dropped.

              Zero problem here.

                • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  ahh i see the ‘non-technical, moral’ argument. i can appreciate this one. take a stand, you do you!

                  im going to do me.

                  i dont go out of my way to block instances just because i hate the companies. im focusing on interoperability concerns.

                  im glad we can agree, theres no technical concern with threads federation.