yeah, it doesn't destroy anything on the worldwide scale.
but it weakens.

erosion is a rather perfect term for it

I mean, imagine if non-british companies just went "well, no encryption for you, then."

And disabled TLS too.

Online Banking would probably just have to... stop.
And a lot of other pages wouldn't load on most browsers requiring https

yeah, well, even the @twitter account now has the X logo.

x.com redirects to twitter.com as well.

Wonder if Businesses will replace the twitter logo in their windows as well.

This is why we need Firefox.

And Firefox needs to be a market that can't be ignored.

I mean, you still need object detection and recognition with lidar, don't want to stamp on the brakes for a leaf.
And using only the primary sense of humans does kinda make sense.

still think it's tough call. Would be great if you don't need it. And don't know how expensive it would have been, especially at the start for all the people needing the hardware but not actually getting the use out of it.

otoh the only really successfull company in the space - waymo - uses it, that seems like a really strong sign

The issue is once you open these floodgates you’re not going to be able to close them, at least not without alienating a vast majority of users on both sides.

I mean, users of Meta producs are already plenty alienated from Lemmy etc, aren't they?

once meta gains the majority of users and content on its instances (and this is really more of a “when”, not “if” situation)

I mean, it's a matter of... minutes? hours?, probably not days even.
That's why I'd like to be able to talk to them.

they can start making changes to AP and overall infrastructure and forcing other instances to either adapt to that, or get left behind one by one, similar to what google does regardless of W3C and other browsers have to adapt even though it goes against the agreed standard.

And I agree that these are very very dangerous. I wouldn't say they could only be bad, but still.
Anyway, not following bad changes by meta would leave people where?
Exactly where they are right now.
In that case, Meta joining the fediverse would have been a failed experiment.

it’s going to be the email situation all over again, we’ll have just a few large trusted providers and the rest will be a seemingly unsafe niche that most people avoid.
I have to say... That seems like a win though.

Billions of people using interoparable software to talk to each other. Email is a brilliant success!
Yes, having "few" larger instances isn't great, but on the other hand most companies run their own email server, and those talk fine with anyone else.
Doesn't seem like a terrible result to me.
Much rather "the Email situation" than the "whatsapp situation" or "signal situation" or "facebook situation" or "reddit situation" or "instagram situation" or "tiktok situation" where you have to join that specific thing to talk to people.

meta can already freely pull that data from any instance
ActivityPub baby!

There seems very little incentive for Meta to federate with anyone, except good faith, right?
They'll double the Fediverse Userbase in an hour, or less.

I disagree.

I hope there'll be people discussing sensibly.
For example the question how the rest of the fediverse would like Meta to act, when / if they have the by far largest instance on Fediverse with Threads.
Should they Rate-Limit queries from their users to other Instances, as to not overload them? This would protect other instances, but make the federated experience worse, driving more people to threads.
Would the Fediverse rather that Meta mirrors images etc on their servers too, or pull those from the original server?
Maybe they have UX ideas that would be useful to have somewhat uniform (like the subreddit/community/magazine stuff here), and would like input on them.

Of course just blocking them is an option for the fediverse, but doing that blindly seems like a missed opportunity for both sides.
More freely available content would be great, wouldn't it?

Maybe they have Ideas on the protocol, that they want to talk with admins about as a first step to gain more perspective. And certainly they are likely to be data-hungry greedy shit, but there is a chance that they are actually good ideas - there are actual people working at meta after all.

There's tons of ways in which this could be useful, and I don't really understand the completely blocking approach I see a lot of.
They want to use ActivityPub, that's awesome, finally something new and big that uses an open freaking standard on the web. What are the downsides? If it sucks for communities they can easily block Meta.
Yes, Meta is not a Company working for the betterment of the world, certainly.
But maybe, just maybe, goals align here, and Meta can make money and improve the Fediverse and the Internet with it. And certainly, maybe they want to "take over" ActivityPub, and that would indeed be bad. And even then, wouldn't knowing because they told you be much better than knowing because they're meta?
So, if they want to change the Protocol, be very, very wary of their proposals. But even there there they could just want reasonable improvements because they suddenly deal with 100x of the next biggest instances.

tl;dr: when you tell people what you'd like them to do, it increases the chances of them doing that.

basically just elaborating on this twitter thread.

And because Kotaku decided to play a >1min video ad while i was trying to read:

tl;dr:
According to Circana's PlayerPulse:
47% of console video game players are female (+1% vs YA)
50% of PC video game players are female (+1% vs YA)
54% of mobile video game players are female (+1% vs YA)

41% of PS5s in the US are female owned
45% of Xbox Series consoles are female owned
52% of Swich consoles are female owned
50% of gaming PCs are female owned

I... have to admit, other than Switch I'd have estimated somewhere around 20% to be honest.

But I like to be wrong here, cool that it's not that divided!
And I'm not sure it's a good sign that I didn't expect this.

Maybe Men are more vocal (possibly because women are less so, because of bad treatment), or maybe I'm just not as attentive...

I mean, it's not like theres really anything stopping the big providers to implement PGP on top of Email.
They just don't, because users don't care. So you have to do it yourself, in a plugin or whatever.
Still works, just more cumbersome, but I wouldn't blame the protocol... at all.