I used to say “Welcome to Lemmy” to new joiners, but nowadays quite a few of them join Piefed instance, having a generic term is easier
You can’t follow Mastodon users from Lemmy or Piefed, using “Fedivers” seems too generic
Previous post on the same topic: https://lemmy.zip/post/33451610
[email protected] has nothing to do with the Meta company
I, uh, don’t know what you’re trying to say. I was talking about support for the ActivityPub protocol.
I was referring to this comment ( https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/21052151 )
So you didn’t mean to reply to me in the first place?
I did, I was making a comparison how comments words such as “meta” and “threads” shouldn’t be owned by corporations
Whilst I agree that they shouldn’t, it’s a fact that Threads exists and, as far as I know, is not part of the Threadiverse but is in an adjacent space. To the point where I personally, someone involved in the Fediverse, am not sure whether it communicates with the “Threadiverse”. Mastodon does, for example.
If we were talking about a family of phones called “Threads” then that wouldn’t be all that confusing, but when it’s another social app then it’s a mess.
If you count Mastodon, then Threads does indeed communicate with the Threadiverse. Here on Mbin, I can find federated accounts from there, like this totally random guy which do have actual posts. So looks like everything is federating over well.
Is Zuck still using the term Threadiverse? If it was a one-off, then I’d write it off and take back the darn term.
I’ve no idea, but I know Threads still exists. Beyond that I don’t know what they’re up to and what the state of play is in terms of Fediverse integration.
They chose well in terms of trying to poison the well.
They do not, at this moment. The moment you see a Facebook Threads user comment here, you’ll be sure everyone will be talking about this.
My confusion and uncertainty was the point. It wasn’t a question.